Affective Instability and Suicidal Ideation and Behavior in Patients with Borderline Personality Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study employed an Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM) to test whether various elements of affective instability can predict future suicide ideation in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) and a history of recurrent suicidal behavior. Eighty-two individuals with BPD and a history of recurrent suicidal behavior were followed prospectively for one month during which time they recorded their current mood states, 6 times daily over three weeks. Accounting for a set of robust suicide risk factors in multiple regression analyses, only negative mood intensity was significantly related to intensity of self-reported suicide ideation and to number of suicidal behaviors over the past year. Other elements of affective instability examined (e.g., mood amplitude, dyscontrol, and reactivity) were not associated with future suicide ideation or with recent suicidal behavior. Affective instability in patients with BPD is highly variable from one individual to another and is characterized by high levels of intense negative mood. These negative mood states, versus other aspects of mood variability, seem to be more closely tied to the occurrence of suicidal ideation and behavior.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".