Are The Symptom Dimensions in Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Related To Thought-Action Fusion, Magical Thinking, and Schizotypal Personality Traits?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between symptom dimensions within obsessive-compulsive disorder and thought-action fusion, magical thinking, and schizotypal personality traits. Methods: This research was designed as a cross-sectional case-control study. The study population involved patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder, and healthy controls who did not exhibit any psychiatric disorders following the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID-I). Thought-Action Fusion Scale (TAFS), Magical Ideation Scale (MIS), Vancouver Obsessional-Compulsive Inventory (VOCI), Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) were administered to all participants. The two groups were compared in terms of sociodemographic variables and scale scores, Spearman's correlation analysis was performed to examine the relationship between TAFS total and all subscale scores, magical thinking, schizotypal personality traits and OCD symptom dimensions scores. Results: The study comprised 37 patients with OCD and 36 healthy controls. The patient group exhibited significantly higher scores in TAF total and all subscales, MIS, SCQ, BDI, and BAI, compared to the healthy control group. Positive correlations between magical ideation scores and VOCI-obsessions and VOCI-hoarding subscale scores and between schizotypal personality scores and VOCI-obsessions, VOCI-hoarding, VOCI-just right, VOCI indecisiveness scores was found. Conclusions: The relationship between symptom dimensions in obsessive-compulsive disorder such as sexual, religious, aggression, hoarding, symmetry/ordering and magical thinking and schizotypal personality traits shows that these variables are among the determining factors for OCD symptoms. .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".