Obsessive-compulsive symptoms and traits in patients with burning mouth syndrome: a cross-sectional multicentric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the frequency and characteristics of obsessive-compulsive (OC) symptoms and Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD) in patients with Burning Mouth Syndrome (BMS). BACKGROUND: Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is a chronic condition involving intrusive thoughts (obsessions) and repetitive behaviors (compulsions), while Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD) is a personality disorder characterized by specific traits such as perfectionism, rigidity and need for control. Both conditions frequently overlap, but their prevalence in patients with BMS has never been explored. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 151 BMS patients were assessed using the Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory-Revised (OCI-R), Compulsive Personality Assessment Scale (CPAS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Hamilton Anxiety and Depression scales (HAM-A, HAM-D), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). Patients were grouped based on OCI and CPAS scores. RESULTS: n = 123 (81.6%) of our sample were females, with a mean age of 63.19 ± 12.2 years. Clinically significant OC symptoms (OCI-R > 21) were observed in 41.7% of the sample, while 37% met OCPD criteria; both OC symptoms and OCPD were present in 24.5% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: BMS patients show a high prevalence of OC symptoms and OCPD traits, which should be taken into account by clinicians and considered in the therapeutic approach, given that they could complicate symptom management. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: By identifying these symptoms and traits through OCI-R and CPAS, clinicians may improve treatment strategies, in the perspective of a multidisciplinary tailored and personalized approach.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".