Disorder Relevant or Disorder Specific: Fear of Losing Control in OCD and Panic Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Fear of losing control may play an important role in multiple anxiety disorders. However, the disorder relevance/ specificity of the construct has not been examined. The authors previously developed the novel Fear of Losing Control Inventory (FOLCI), with which the present study aimed to investigate the disorder relevance/ specificity of fear of losing control in OCD and panic disorder. Methods The FOLCI, the Beliefs About Losing Control Inventory-II (BALCI-II) and a battery of psychological measures were administered to three groups: OCD ( N = 36), panic disorder ( N = 31) and healthy controls ( N = 33). Mixed model ANOVAs tested for differences between groups in terms of FOLCI and BALCI-II subscales. Results As hypothesised, the OCD and panic groups reported greater fear of losing control than healthy controls across all FOLCI and BALCI-II subscales. Contrary to hypotheses, there were no significant differences between the OCD and panic groups in terms of the FOLCI’s Agent of Harm, Delayed Catastrophe and Imminent Catastrophe subscales. As hypothesised, the panic group scored significantly higher than the OCD group on the Bodily Sensations subscale. Non-hypothesised differences were also observed, with the panic group scoring significantly higher than the OCD group on the Escape and Avoidance subscale, and the Thoughts and Feelings subscale. Discussion Findings suggest fear of losing control is relevant to both OCD and panic disorder. The findings suggest some aspects—specifically fear of losing control of bodily sensations, emotions (and thoughts) and escape and avoidance behaviours driven by feared loss of control, may be specific to panic disorder. The present findings extend previous research by demonstrating the relevance of feared loss of control—and of the FOLCI and BALCI-II as measures—within clinical groups.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".