Using a Sibling Design to Compare Childhood Adversities in Female Patients With BPD and Their Sisters
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abuse and neglect are well-established risk correlates of borderline personality disorder (BPD). The goal of this study was to examine whether BPD probands can be differentiated from their sisters with respect to a range of developmental adversity and maltreatment indicators, including retrospective self-reports of past experiences of childhood abuse and neglect, dysfunctional parent-child relationships and peer victimization and dysfunctional peer relationships. A total of 53 patients with BPD were compared to 53 sisters who were currently free of psychopathology on measures assessing childhood adversities. Both probands and sisters reported similar prevalence of intrafamilial abuse, although BPD patients reported more severe physical and emotional abuse. BPD patients reported higher prevalence of physical abuse by peers. These findings generally support the principle of multifinality, in which similar histories of adversities can be associated with a variety of outcomes, ranging from psychopathology to resilience.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it