MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968488520 · doi:10.1521/pedi.17.5.460.22970

Behavioral Activation and the Prevention of Suicidal Behaviors in Patients With Borderline Personality Disorder

2003· review· en· W1968488520 on OpenAlexaff
Derek R. Hopko, Lisa Sanchez, Sandra D. Hopko, Sharone Dvir, Carl W. Lejuez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Disorders · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsCovenant Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBorderline personality disorderDialectical behavior therapyPsychologyBehavioral activationConceptualizationIntervention (counseling)Clinical psychologyPsychotherapistDepression (economics)PsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical approaches in treating and preventing suicidal behaviors in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) have received limited attention. To stimulate further work in this area, we present a behavioral activation treatment for depression (BATD; Lejuez, Hopko, & Hopko, 2002) that has shown promising results in treating clinically depressed patients and a theoretical conceptualization for why BATD may prove particularly useful in reducing the frequency of suicide-related behaviors and other symptoms characteristic of patients with BPD. We also present theoretical consistencies between BATD and the well-established intervention of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT; Linehan, 1993), which may allow for their practical integration, and conclude with a case study that illustrates the assimilation of these strategies in the treatment of a patient with BPD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations80
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality DisordersSame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207