Half of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Cases Misdiagnosed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Medical settings are the primary mode of care for mental health problems; physicians' abilities with regard to psychiatric diagnosis and treatment recommendations are therefore essential. While misdiagnosis can occur across all psychiatric conditions, the heterogeneous nature of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) may make this condition at an elevated risk for misidentification. The study's aim was to assess primary care physicians' ability to identify OCD. METHOD: The study was cross-sectional in design. An online, vignette-based survey was emailed to 1,172 physicians from 5 major medical hospitals in the Greater New York Area. The email included a link to the survey, which consisted of 1 of 8 randomized OCD vignettes; each vignette focused on one of the following common manifestations of OCD: obsessions regarding aggression, contamination, fear of saying things, homosexuality, pedophilia, religion, somatic concerns, or symmetry. Participants provided diagnostic impressions and treatment recommendations for the individual described in the vignette. Data collection took place from December 10, 2012, through January 18, 2013. RESULTS: Two hundred eight physicians completed the survey. The overall misidentification rate was 50.5%. Vignette type was the strongest predictor of a correct OCD response (Wald χ(2)7 = 40.58; P <.0001). Misidentification rates by vignette were homosexuality (84.6%), aggression (80.0%), saying certain things (73.9%), pedophilia (70.8%), somatic concerns (40.0%), religion (37.5%), contamination (32.3%), and symmetry (3.70%). Participants who misidentified the OCD vignette were less likely to recommend a first-line empirically supported treatment (cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT] = 46.7%, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor [SSRI] = 8.6%) compared to participants who correctly identified the OCD vignette (CBT = 66.0%, SSRI = 35.0%). Antipsychotic recommendation rates were elevated among incorrect versus correct responders (12.4% vs 1.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Elevated OCD misdiagnosis rates and the impact of incorrect diagnoses on treatment recommendations highlight the need for greater training regarding OCD symptomatology and empirically supported treatments.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".