Changes in Treated Incidence of Borderline Personality Disorder in Denmark: 1970–2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether there are any trends in treated incidence of borderline personality disorder (BPD) in Danish psychiatric hospitals based on different diagnostic systems from 1970 to 2009. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with BPD for the first time as a main or an auxiliary diagnosis treated in in- or outpatient facilities in Danish psychiatric hospitals were identified through the Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register. Age-standardized, sex-specific, and standardized rates were calculated for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), Eighth Revision, diagnostic period from 1970 to 1993 and the ICD-10 diagnostic period from 1994 to 2009. RESULTS: The incidence for BPD in females as a main or an auxiliary diagnosis increased linearly from 1970 to 2009 (β = 0.69 per 100 000 per year [95% CI 0.66 to 0.73]). The rates for males also increased linearly from 1970 to 1993 (β = 0.37 [95% CI 0.30 to 0.43]) followed by a linearly decrease (β = -0.22 [95% CI -0.29 to -0.15]) in the ICD-10 period from 1994 to 2009. The increase in females with BPD after the mid-1990s is smaller when controlling for outpatients mandatorily registered from 1995. CONCLUSION: The lack of defined criteria for BPD in ICD-8 may have been interpreted broadly to mean Kernberg's overarching concept of borderline personality organization, resulting in similar rates for males and females. However, in ICD-10, clinicians using the more narrow criteria for emotionally unstable personality disorder (borderline type), tended to diagnose BPD more commonly in women. These results suggest the importance of using specific criteria in diagnosing. They also suggest the importance of stability in the diagnostic criteria for BPD and other disorders.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".