Axis II Comorbidity of Borderline Personality Disorder in Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The objective of the present study was to explore the comorbidity of borderline personality disorder (BPD) with other personality disorders in adolescents and compare these comorbidities in male and female subjects. METHODS: The sample was drawn from a European research project investigating the phenomenology of BPD in adolescence (EURNET BPD). A total of 85 BPD patients (11 boys and 74 girls) with a mean age of 16.3 years were included in the study. RESULTS: According to the results of the Structured Interview for DSM-IV Disorders of Personality, obsessive-compulsive (35.3%), antisocial (22.4%), avoidant (21.2%), dependent (11.8%) and paranoid (9.4%) personality disorders had significant co-occurrences with BPD. Although none of the gender differences was statistically significant, we observed a trend towards higher rates of antisocial personality disorders in men (45.5%) than in women (19%). CONCLUSION: The study results confirmed the frequency of Axis II comorbidity in adolescents with BPD and, for the first time, evidenced a differential pattern of comorbidity in males and females. This differential pattern must be taken into account when developing treatment strategies for adolescents with BPD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".