Demonstrating Adherence to Guidelines for the Treatment of Patients with Borderline Personality Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and implementation of General Psychiatric Management (GPM), a dynamically informed psychotherapeutic and case management approach along with symptom-targeted pharmacological interventions for the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD), derived from the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) guidelines for treating BPD. METHOD: Clinician adherence to GPM was assessed using the General Psychiatric Management Adherence Scale (GPMAS), which measured the amount of emphasis accorded to therapeutic tools and strategies during individual therapy sessions. GPMAS surveys were completed by 9 different therapists every 6 weeks during 1 year for 50 patients. RESULTS: GPMAS displayed excellent internal consistency and good-to-excellent test-retest reliability. The convergence between patient- and therapist-rated sessions was excellent. Mean levels of emphasis were significantly greater for GPM interventions than prohibited ones across all time points. The mean number of prescribed psychotropic medications was 2.3, and the most frequently prescribed class of medication was antidepressants, followed by neuroleptics. CONCLUSIONS: From these results, we conclude that the clinicians were adherent to the outlined protocol and that the GPMAS is a valuable measure for demonstrating adherence to therapies based on the APA guidelines.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".