Line bisection performance in patients with personality disorders
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
INTRODUCTION: Normal line bisection deviation to the left of the true centre has been interpreted as resulting from relative right hemisphere activation. Right hemisphere involvement has also been associated with the problems in dependency and attachment from infancy to adulthood. This hemispheric association predicts that patients diagnosed with dependent personality disorder will deviate significantly to the left on the line bisection task. METHODS: This hypothesis was tested by comparing the results of the line bisection task obtained respectively from 30 right-handed healthy volunteers and 14, 16, 18, and 26 outpatients with schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, and dependent personality disorders. Subjects completed eight horizontal line bisection tasks and the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ), a self-report measure of 18 traits delineating personality disorder. RESULTS: Patients with dependent personality disorder bisected significantly leftward compared to healthy controls. Dependent personality disorder patients scored significantly higher on DAPP-BQ Insecure Attachment, and lower on DAPP Stimulus Seeking, Callousness, Intimacy Problems, and Conduct Problems compared to the healthy controls and all other patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: Line bisection differentiates dependent personality disorder from other personality disorder diagnoses and healthy controls. This study thus suggests that line bisection can be used to enhance diagnostic specificity of dependent personality disorder and localises the brain areas implicated in the disorder.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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