MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034448943 · doi:10.1080/10673220216229

Implications of Long-term Outcome Research for the Management of Patients with Borderline Personality Disorder

2002· review· en· W2034448943 on OpenAlexaff
Joel Paris

Bibliographic record

VenueHarvard Review of Psychiatry · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBorderline personality disorderImpulsivityPsychologyContext (archaeology)PersonalityPersonality disordersClinical psychologyNaturalistic observationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fifteen- and 27-year follow-up studies of patients with borderline personality disorder show that most of them no longer meet full criteria for the disorder by age 40, and that even more show improvement by age 50. The mechanisms behind remission could include maturation, social learning, and the avoidance of conflictual intimacy. Affective instability is slower to change than impulsivity. Suicide rates in patients with this disorder are close to 10%, with most completions occurring late in the course of illness; early mortality from all causes exceeds 18%. All of these findings have clinical implications. Although treatment effects must be assessed in the context of naturalistic improvement, therapy can hasten remission.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations64
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarvard Review of PsychiatrySame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207