Response inhibition deficits in unaffected first-degree relatives of patients with borderline personality disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Impulsiveness is a heritable feature of borderline personality disorder (BPD) which aggregates in families affected with the illness. Whereas BPD patients show deficits on neuropsychological tests of response inhibition, it is unknown whether these deficits are also present in their first-degree biological relatives who are at an increased genetic risk for this illness. The purpose of the current study was to identify and characterize a subgroup of BPD patients with pronounced response inhibition deficits, and secondarily, to estimate the relative recurrence risk of these deficits among affected families. METHOD: Thirty-nine pairs of female BPD probands and their unaffected first-degree biological sisters were recruited from hospital outpatient clinics. Participants completed the Conners' Continuous Performance Test (CPT) and the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11. RESULTS: BPD relatives made a similar number of commission errors on the CPT compared to healthy controls with no personal or family history of psychiatric illness; however, cluster analysis revealed a subgroup of BPD relatives who displayed clinically elevated commission errors and atypically fast RTs to target stimuli, indicating a genuine response inhibition deficit. The estimated relative recurrence risk for response inhibition deficits for all sibling pairs on the CPT was moderate at λ = 4.55. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that response inhibition deficits are pronounced in some BPD relatives, may be heritable between siblings, are nonredundant with diagnostic status, and show promise as candidate neuropsychological endophenotypes for 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".