The Impact of Parental Borderline Personality Disorder on Vulnerability to Depression in Children of Affectively Ill Parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children of parents with major depressive disorder (MDD) are four to six times more likely than other children to develop MDD. Little research has examined whether comorbid parental diagnoses further increase children's risk. This study examines whether children of parents with comorbid MDD and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) (1) are at greater risk for experiencing depressive symptoms and/or episodes and (2) whether such increased risk may be due, in part, to their exhibiting higher levels of cognitive/interpersonal vulnerability factors. Children (n = 140; ages 6-14) of parents with MDD completed measures assessing cognitive/interpersonal vulnerability factors. Parents completed semi-structured clinical interviews assessing severity of current depressive symptoms and BPD. Both children and parents completed a semi-structured clinical interview assessing the child's current and past history of MDD. Children of parents with comorbid MDD and BPD exhibited higher levels of current depressive symptoms and higher levels of cognitive/interpersonal vulnerability factors than children of parents with MDD but no BPD, even after controlling for parents' current levels of depressive symptoms. The relationship between parental BPD and chil-dren's current levels of depressive symptoms was partially mediated by children's cognitive/interpersonal vulnerability factors. Last, children of parents with comorbid BPD and MDD were 6.84 times more likely to exhibit a current or past diagnosis of MDD.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".