The clinical significance of co‐morbid post‐traumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder: Case study and literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study is to determine the clinical significance of co‐morbid borderline personality disorder (BPD) and post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and the effect of this co‐morbidity on suicidal behaviour and response to treatment. Review of the evidence from past studies revealed that, although an additional diagnosis of PTSD did not exacerbate the BPD condition (or vice versa), certain symptoms were accentuated. These symptoms included anger, anxiety and avoidant behaviours as well as suicide proneness. The case analysed for the purposes of this study also highlights these findings from the literature review (i.e. certain symptoms of both PTSD and BPD were exacerbated in the patient, but there was no increase in overall psychopathology). The literature review further shows that despite promising results of alleviation of certain BPD features when treating for PTSD, treatment of such a co‐morbid condition must proceed with caution as treatment of PTSD without treatment of BPD and the related suicidal behaviour may be detrimental to the patient. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".