The impact of childhood abuse on patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder: an Egyptian study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The presence of childhood abuse is expected to have a great impact on several psychological domains on obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) patients. This study was designed to assess the psychological impact of history childhood abuse (emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and emotional and physical neglect) on five psychological domains among OCD patients (self-esteem, depression, suicidal risk, cognitive functions, and anxiety). Methods This cross-sectional study included 101 OCD patients who were seen in the psychiatric department’s outpatient clinic at Zagazig University Hospital. They were diagnosed according to DSM-IV (SCID-I interview). All the patients were assessed using Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ-28), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), Beck’s Suicide Scale, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and the MoCA scale (Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test). Results The prevalence of childhood abuse in the studied group was 74.3%. 24.8% with emotional abuse, 20.8% with physical abuse, 16.8% with sexual abuse, and 11.9% of patients with emotional and physical neglect. The different types of childhood abuse (emotional, physical, and sexual abuse) were significantly associated with decreased self-esteem and increased depressive symptoms, while emotional and physical neglect were associated with decreased self-esteem only among OCD patients. The most powerful and significant predictor of lower self-esteem and depression was sexual abuse, and it was also the only significant predictor of increased suicidal risk among OCD patients. Conclusions History of childhood abuse was significantly associated with decreased self-esteem and increased depressive symptoms among OCD patients. Only history of sexual abuse was significantly associated with increased suicidal risk. So, evaluation of the childhood abuse history is highly important among OCD patients to be incorporated in the management plan to reduce the suffering of OCD patients and for better improvement.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".