Alexithymia and Suicidal Ideation among Patients with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Obsessive-compulsive disorder(OCD) is a highly prevalent and chronic condition that is associated with substantial global disability, OCD is a prevalent and chronic psychiatric disorder that significantly impairs global functioning, quality of life, and well-being of the individual and associated support systems. Alexithymia is known to be associated with suicidal ideation as well in the clinical population of people with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Aim of the study: Was to assess alexithymia and suicidal ideation among patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Subjects and Methods; Research design: A crosssectional design was adopted to carry out this study. Setting: The study was conducted at psychiatric outpatient clinic at Zagazig University Hospitals and Abbasyia Hospital for mental health in Cairo city. Subjects: A purposive sample of 140 patients with obsessive compulsive disorder. Tools of data collection: Four tools will be used to collect the necessary data for this study. They were: Socio-demographic questionnaire, Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) and scale for Suicidal Ideation.Results: The study reveals that more than two thirds of studied patients had mild obsessive compulsive level, more than two-thirds of studied patients had alexithymia, more than twothirds of studied patients had suicidal ideation, and there were statistically significant positive correlations between patients’ obsessive compulsive and alexithymia and suicidal ideation score. Conclusion: Patients’ suicidal ideation score was statistically significant positive predictor for obsessive compulsive disorder. Also, patients’ obsessive compulsive score was statistically significant positive predictor for suicidal ideation. Recommendations: Developing psychoeducation program to patients and family member (s) about OCD, its course, treatment options including duration of treatment. Developing emotion focused intervention strategies for patients to reduce alexithymia and enhancing their self- efficacy of emotional dysregulation (alexithymia).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".