Intérêt clinique d’une conception neuroscientifique du trouble de personnalité limite : dysfonctionnements du système exécutif et de la théorie de l’esprit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a complex psychopathology. Through recent developments, neuroscience is able to contribute to better understanding the neurobiological underpinnings of BPD manifestations. This article aims to demonstrate that BPD is in part due to executive and frontal dysregulation of the mechanisms responsible for the optimal functioning of inferences specific to theory of mind. To do so, four types of observations will be examined: parallels between frontal personality and BPD, the presence of frontal cognitive deficits in BPD, the consequences of childhood abuse and neglect on brain development and finally, the results of brain imagery in BPD. This article follows in the path of a growing interest in the integration of the neuroscientific perspective of BPD to current conceptualisations in psychopathology. The final aim is to try to offer an understanding of BPD manifestations that avoids the traditional splitting between mind and brain-psychology and biology-and to show the numerous associations between clinical psychology and neurobiology.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".