A Randomized Trial of Dialectical Behavior Therapy Versus General Psychiatric Management for Borderline Personality Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to evaluate the clinical efficacy of dialectical behavior therapy compared with general psychiatric management, including a combination of psychodynamically informed therapy and symptom-targeted medication management derived from specific recommendations in APA guidelines for borderline personality disorder. METHOD: This was a single-blind trial in which 180 patients diagnosed with borderline personality disorder who had at least two suicidal or nonsuicidal self-injurious episodes in the past 5 years were randomly assigned to receive 1 year of dialectical behavior therapy or general psychiatric management. The primary outcome measures, assessed at baseline and every 4 months over the treatment period, were frequency and severity of suicidal and nonsuicidal self-harm episodes. RESULTS: Both groups showed improvement on the majority of clinical outcome measures after 1 year of treatment, including significant reductions in the frequency and severity of suicidal and nonsuicidal self-injurious episodes and significant improvements in most secondary clinical outcomes. Both groups had a reduction in general health care utilization, including emergency visits and psychiatric hospital days, as well as significant improvements in borderline personality disorder symptoms, symptom distress, depression, anger, and interpersonal functioning. No significant differences across any outcomes were found between groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that individuals with borderline personality disorder benefited equally from dialectical behavior therapy and a well-specified treatment delivered by psychiatrists with expertise in the treatment of borderline personality disorder.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".