Smaller stress-sensitive hippocampal subfields in women with borderline personality disorder without posttraumatic stress disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Animal and human studies have suggested that hippocampal subfields are differentially vulnerable to stress, but subfield volume has not been investigated in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). Based on the putative role of stressful life events as vulnerability factors for BPD, we hypothesized that patients with BPD would exhibit reduced volumes for the stress-sensitive dentate gyrus (DG) and the cornu ammonis (CA) 3 subfields volumes, and that these volumes would be associated with traumatic childhood experiences. METHODS: All participants underwent 3 T magnetic resonance imaging. Hippocampal subfield volumes were estimated using an automated and validated segmentation algorithm implemented in FreeSurfer. Age and total subcortical grey matter volume were covariates. We assessed traumatic childhood experiences using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ). RESULTS: A total of 18 women with BPD and 21 healthy control women were included in the study. Only 1 patient had comorbid posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The volumes of the left (p = 0.005) and right (p = 0.011) DG-CA4 and left (p = 0.007) and right (p = 0.005) CA2-3 subfields were significantly reduced in patients compared with controls. We also found significant group differences for the left (p = 0.032) and right (p = 0.028) CA1, but not for other hippocampal subfields. No associations were found between CTQ scores and subfield volumes. LIMITATIONS: The self-reported CTQ might be inferior to more comprehensive assessments of traumatic experiences. The sample size was moderate. CONCLUSION: The volumes of stress-sensitive hippocampal subfields are reduced in women with BPD without PTSD. However, the degree to which childhood trauma is responsible for these changes is unclear.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".