MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141936573 · doi:10.1037/per0000058

Stability of narcissistic personality disorder: Tracking categorical and dimensional rating systems over a two-year period.

2014· article· en· W2141936573 on OpenAlexaff
Aline Vater, Kathrin Ritter, Sandra Strunz, Elsa Ronningstam, Babette Renneberg, Stefan Roepke

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality Disorders Theory Research and Treatment · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorical variablePersonalityPersonality disordersPersonality pathologyPsychologyClinical psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Personality disorders are characterized as temporally stable patterns of symptoms (APA, 2000). However, evidence on the stability of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is generally lacking. This study tracked the prevalence and remission rates of individual criteria for NPD over the course of 2 years. In addition, the stability of dimensional personality pathology in patients with NPD (assessed with the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology, DAPP-BQ) was assessed over time. A sample of 96 patients with a diagnosis of NPD was recruited at baseline. Forty patients participated in the follow-up assessment 2 years later. Our results indicate a moderate remission rate (53%) for NPD as a categorical diagnosis. However, single NPD criteria differed in their prevalence and temporal stability, similar to findings for other personality disorders. Moreover, scores on dimensional subscales of the DAPP-BQ remained stable over time. Theoretical implications are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonality Disorders Theory Research and TreatmentSame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207