Predicting Response to Day Treatment for Personality Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Efforts to improve the effectiveness of day treatment should attend to factors that influence treatment response. Our prospective study identified predictors of response to day treatment for personality disorder (PD). METHOD: Patients with a PD, consecutively admitted to a day treatment program, were assessed with self-report and interview measures. Predictors included personality characteristic, demographic, initial disturbance, and PD variables. Patients' overall response to treatment was classified as better, same, or worse, based on change in multiple outcome measures. A comprehensive approach to multivariate modelling was used. RESULTS: The likelihood of being classified as better significantly increased if the patient was more psychologically minded, used avoidance-oriented coping strategies, and had a high level of baseline symptom severity. Probability of being classified as better decreased if the patient had a substance use disorder and a history of high service use. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying factors that affect response to day treatment can help clinicians make better selection decisions or take measures to modify treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".