Co-existence of Capgras syndrome and OCD in children: Case studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionCapgras syndrome (CS) is characterized by the delusional belief that a person, usually a close relative, has been replaced by an imposter. This study focuses on the co-occurrence of CS and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) in children.MethodsWe present two cases of children diagnosed with CS and OCD treated at our inpatient child psychiatric unit.Cases presentationWe describe the cases of an 11-year-old male who believed his parents were demonic entities and a 12-year-old female who believed her parents were robots. Both children exhibited additional psychiatric manifestations such as depression, catatonia, obsessive-compulsive (OC) symptoms, persecutory delusions, reduced food intake, and suicidal ideation. Our treatment approach combines antipsychotic medication, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and gradual exposure therapy accompanied by parent training, has yielded favorable outcomes in managing the patients' psychiatric symptoms.Discussion and ConclusionWe provide insights into CS with comorbid OCD in children and discuss the behavioral treatment approach employed in our cases. We also discuss similar cases of CS comorbid with OCD from the English literature.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".