Cognitive therapy <i>v.</i> usual treatment for borderline personality disorder: prospective 6-year follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Longer-term follow-up of patients with borderline personality disorder have found favourable clinical outcomes, with long-term reduction in symptoms and diagnosis. AIMS: We examined the 6-year outcome of patients with borderline personality disorder who were randomised to 1 year of cognitive-behavioural therapy for personality disorders (CBT-PD) or treatment as usual (TAU) in the BOSCOT trial, in three centres across the UK (trial registration: ISRCTN86177428). METHOD: In total, 106 participants met criteria for borderline personality disorder in the original trial. Patients were interviewed at follow-up by research assistants masked to the patient's original treatment group, CBT-PD or TAU, using the same measures as in the original randomised trial. Statistical analyses of data for the group as a whole are based on generalised linear models with repeated measures analysis of variance type models to examine group differences. RESULTS: Follow-up data were obtained for 82% of patients at 6 years. Over half the patients meeting criteria for borderline personality disorder at entry into the study no longer did so 6 years later. The gains of CBT-PD over TAU in reduction of suicidal behaviour seen after 1-year follow-up were maintained. Length of hospitalisation and cost of services were lower in the CBT-PD group compared with the TAU group. CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of CBT-PD did not demonstrate a statistically significant cost-effective advantage, the findings indicate the potential for continued long-term cost-offsets that accrue following the initial provision of 1 year of CBT-PD. However, the quality of life and affective disturbance remained poor.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".