Predictors of Comorbid Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Skin-Picking Disorder in Trichotillomania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Trichotillomania (TTM), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and skin-picking disorder (SPD) frequently occur together and share overlapping phenomenology, pathophysiology, and possible genetic underpinnings. This study sought to identify factors that predict OCD and SPD in hair pullers. Methods Five hundred fifty-five adult female hair pullers were recruited from specialty clinics and assessed using standardized, semi-structured interviews and self-reports. Clinical predictors and multivariate models were evaluated using logistic regression modeling. Results Hair pullers met criteria for OCD (18.9%), SPD (19.5%), or chronic skin picking (CSP) (5%), or both comorbid diagnoses, respectively. In the final multivariate model for OCD, family history of OCD and an eating disorder diagnosis were associated with an increased risk of OCD in TTM. A nail-biting diagnosis was associated with a decreased risk of OCD in TTM. In the final multivariate model for SPD/CSP, only family history of OCD was associated with an increased risk of SPD/CSP in TTM. Conclusions Identification of factors predicting OCD and SPD in TTM provides evidence for the relatedness of these disorders and supports their collective classification as obsessive-compulsive and related disorders (OCRDs) in DSM-5. The findings of this study further underscore the importance of assessing for comorbid OCRDs and family histories of OCRDs in clinical practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".