Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Medical School Curriculum and Textbook Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We conducted a curriculum review of Canadian undergraduate medical programs to identify why aggressive obsessions (among those with obsessive-compulsive disorder [OCD]) are so often misidentified by primary care physicians and professional students. METHODS: This study involved standardized interviews with representatives from Canadian medical schools regarding the content, time, and teaching styles used to deliver curricula related to OCD. Further, we utilized a set of standardized criteria to assess the OCD content of recommended textbooks from these schools. RESULTS: Canadian medical curricula failed to provide a comprehensive picture of OCD. One-third of medical programs did not provide an example of aggressive obsessions to students, with textbook case examples centered heavily (70%) on contamination or symmetry. Only 25% of programs (and 60% of textbooks) discussed the composition of the Unacceptable Thought Domain to include aggressive, sexual, and religious obsessions. Finally, over half of medical programs failed to indicate that aggressive obsessions are ego-dystonic and do not lead people to harm themselves or others. CONCLUSION: A series of recommendations are provided for medical schools intended to improve the comprehensiveness of OCD-related training.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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 it