Prospective Risk Factors for Suicide Attempts in a Treated Sample of Patients with Borderline Personality Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: People with borderline personality disorder (BPD) are at high risk for attempting suicide. There are some data to suggest that risk factors for suicide attempts change over time. We conducted a prospective cohort study to examine risk factors for suicide attempts in a treated sample of patients with BPD. METHOD: One hundred eighty participants with BPD were followed over a year-long course of dialectical behaviour therapy or general psychiatric management and then for 2 more years in naturalistic follow-up. Participants were assessed for suicidal and self-injurious behaviours at baseline, every 4 months over the 1-year treatment phase, and every 6 months over a 2-year follow-up period. Participants were classified as suicide or non-suicide attempters based on their behaviour at the end of the 1-year treatment phase and after the 2-year follow-up period. Groups were then compared on baseline clinical and demographic variables. RESULTS: Nearly 26% of participants made a suicide attempt during the 1-year treatment phase, while 16.7% reported a suicide attempt over the 2-year follow-up period. Baseline number of suicide attempts during the 4 months prior to study and severity of childhood sexual abuse predicted suicide attempts during the treatment year. Similarly, baseline suicide attempts, severity of childhood sexual abuse, and number of hospitalizations in the 4 months prior to study entry predicted suicide attempts during the 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors for suicide attempts in this treated sample of patients with BPD were fairly stable, largely non-modifiable, and unrelated to psychopathology or psychosocial functioning at baseline.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".