Universal personality dimensions and dysfunctional obsessional beliefs in the DSM-5’s OCD and related disorders (OCRDs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the extent to which personality and cognitive factors contribute to the identification of shared associations between the DSM-5’s OCD and Related Disorders (OCRDs). Participants (n = 239) were treatment-seeking outpatients with a principal diagnosis of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), hoarding disorder (HD), trichotillomania (TTM), or excoriation disorder (EXC), as compared to healthy community controls (n = 100). Analyses examined the relationships between diagnostic group, personality dimensions, and obsessive beliefs. Results demonstrated that compared to non-clinical controls, all diagnostic groups scored significantly higher on neuroticism and lower on extraversion and conscientiousness. Few significant differences were found across diagnostic groups: extraversion was higher in the TTM group (vs. all OCRDs), conscientiousness was lower in the HD group (vs. OCD, TTM, EXC), and openness to experience was higher in the TTM and EXC groups (vs. OCD, HD). Obsessional beliefs were significantly elevated in all clinical conditions (vs. controls) except for beliefs surrounding responsibility and threat estimation, which were only significantly higher in OCD and BDD groups. These results highlight shared personality and cognitive vulnerability in the OCRDs as well as unique disorder-specific vulnerabilities related to OCD.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".