Subpopulations and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Outcome in The Nordic Long-Term OCD Treatment Study (NordLOTS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The aim was to describe sub-populations and examine cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) outcome from the Nordic Long-Term OCD Treatment Study (NordLOTS), based on health anxiety symptoms (HAS), body dysmorphic symptoms (BDS), tic symptoms (TS), hoarding symptoms (HS), autism spectrum disorder symptoms (ASDS), age and OCD symptom type. Methods The NordLOTS included 269 OCD patients aged 7-17 years with OCD (DSM-IV) who all received stepped-care treatment beginning with 14 weekly sessions of CBT and assessed 3 years after ended treatment. Results HAS were present in 31% of the participants (often with other anxiety symptoms), BDS in 7.8% of the sample and correlated with age and other anxiety symptoms, ASDS symptoms in 10% with higher rates of ADHD and tic disorders, lower insight, more indecisiveness and pervasive slowness. TS were found in 29.9% of participants, who were more likely to be male, have earlier OCD onset, more impairment and comorbidity. HS were seen in 26.8%, who also had more comorbid tic disorders and indecision. All subgroups (including age groups) presented with different OCD symptom profiles. Patients with higher levels of symmetry/hoarding related symptoms responded slightly more favorable to CBT than those with other types of OCD symptoms. Contamination symptoms may be important for a specific population of limited responders. Conclusions Although subpopulations presented with different demographic and clinical profiles, most did not differ in their response to CBT. Symmetry/hoarding related OCD may show a slightly more favorable response to CBT compared with other types of 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".