Moving beyond symptom subtypes: testing a common dimension of lifetime OCD symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a neuropsychiatric disorder characterized by recurrent intrusive thoughts and ritualized behaviors, often aimed at reducing distress. OCD is heterogeneous in its presentation and many patients with OCD experience a variety of different symptoms throughout their course of illness. Efforts to understand symptom domains in OCD have typically identified three to five symptom domains, such as the domains of doubt/checking, contamination, superstitions/rituals, symmetry/hoarding, and taboo thoughts. Recent studies in the genetics of OCD have suggested a common OCD dimension may provide additional information above and beyond the previously identified symptom domains. Thus, we sought to test a hierarchical model of lifetime OCD symptoms and evaluate the utility of the inclusion of a common OCD dimension. METHODS: Participants included 999 individuals participating in the OCD Collaborative Genetics Study (OCGS) and an additional 2363 individuals participating in the OCD Genetic Association Study (OCGAS). We evaluated unidimensional, 5-factor, and hierarchical models of lifetime OCD symptom presentation using confirmatory factor analysis. RESULTS: Results suggested that the hierarchical model best fit the data. Further evaluation of these models using a Bayesian testlet response model showed that lifetime presence of specific OCD symptoms was differentially associated with lifetime OCD severity. Moreover, symptoms associated with greater lifetime severity were generally reported less frequently than symptoms present at lower levels of lifetime severity. Implications of these findings and future directions are discussed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".