Off-label use of atypical antipsychotics in personality disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Personality disorders are among the most persistent and challenging disorders to treat within psychiatry. There is emerging evidence that some personality disorders, particularly borderline personality disorder and, to a lesser extent, schizotypal personality disorder, may benefit from treatment with atypical antipsychotics as well as mood stabilizers. This review examines the evidence for atypical antipsychotics for personality disorders and discusses strengths and limitations of this approach. AREAS COVERED: Searches of Medline and PsycInfo yielded 57 articles related to use of atypical antipsychotics for treatment of personality disorders. Most were relatively small randomized, controlled trials examining atypical antipsychotics for borderline personality disorder; however, the search also yielded two Cochrane reviews examining pharmacotherapy for borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder as well as three other meta-analyses. EXPERT OPINION: There is some evidence that atypical antipsychotics are effective for treating symptom domains in personality disorders, in particular psychotic-like symptoms, impulsivity, aggression and anger. There is no evidence that they improve overall illness severity. Given the high rate of comorbidity between personality disorders and axis I disorders, atypical antipsychotics are best used when these symptom domains are prominent and there is a comorbid axis I condition for which an atypical antipsychotic is indicated.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".