Dissociation in Borderline Personality Disorder: A Detailed Look
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the present study was to assess in detail the whole spectrum of normal and pathological dissociative experiences and dissociative disorder (DD) diagnoses in borderline personality disorder (BPD) as diagnosed with the Revised Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines. Dissociation was measured comprehensively in 21 BPD outpatients using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders-Revised, the Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation (MID), the Dissociative Experiences Scale pathological taxon analysis, and the Somatoform Dissociation Questionnaire. The frequencies of DDs in this BPD sample were as follows: 24% no DD, 29% mild DD (dissociative amnesia and depersonalization disorder), 24% DD Not Otherwise Specified (DDNOS), and 24% dissociative identity disorder. With regard to the dissociative experiences endorsed, almost all patients reported identity confusion, unexplained mood changes, and depersonalization. Even those BPD patients with mild DD reported derealization, depersonalization, and dissociative amnesia. BPD patients with DDNOS reported frequent depersonalization, frequent amnesia, and notable experiences of identity alteration. BPD patients with dissociative identity disorder endorsed severe dissociative symptoms in all categories. Analysis of the MID pathological dissociation items revealed that 32% of the items were endorsed at a clinically significant level of frequency by more than 50% of our BPD patients. In conclusion, the frequencies of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.) DDs in these patients with BPD were surprisingly high. Likewise, the "average" BPD patient endorsed a wide variety of recurrent pathological dissociative symptoms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".