Investigation of the Relationship Between Family Accommodation, Alexithymia, and Emotional Regulation Difficulty in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to explore the relationship between family accommodation, emotion regulation difficulties, and alexithymia in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). METHODS: The study group consisted of 107 individuals diagnosed with OCD, while the control group included 151 healthy individuals. Sociodemographic data form, Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS), Family Accommodation Scale-Patient Version (FASPV), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS), and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) were used to collect data. RESULTS: In our study, it was found that the median DERS and TAS scores of the participants were significantly higher in the OCD group than in the control group. A moderate positive correlation was found between FAS-PV and the total score of YBOCS (p=0.002, r=0.302). Statistically significant, low to moderate, positive correlations were observed between FAS-PV and the total score of DERS (p=0.001, r=0.319). Furthermore, a statistically significant, moderate to low correlation was found between YBOCS and the total score of DERS. A positive and substantial influence on FAS-PV is provided by the YBOCS variable (B=0.571, p=0.01). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this study found that difficulty in emotion regulation and alexithymia levels were higher in individuals with OCD compared to healthy controls, and that family accommodation was related to both difficulties in emotion regulation and alexithymia. Finally, it was determined that difficulty in emotion regulation has a mediating effect in the relationship between family accommodation and alexithymia. It is suggested that longitudinal studies be conducted to further support the data presented by this study.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".