Hippocampus and amygdala volumes in patients with borderline personality disorder with or without posttraumatic stress disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies have investigated volumetric brain changes in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD). Both groups exhibit volume reductions of the hippocampus and amygdala. Our aim was to investigate the influence of comorbid PTSD on hippocampus and amygdala volumes in patients with BPD. METHODS: We compared 2 groups of unmedicated female patients with BPD (10 with and 15 without comorbid PTSD) and 25 healthy female controls. We used T(1)- and T(2)-weighted magnetic resonance images for manual tracing and 3-dimensional reconstruction of the hippocampus and amygdala. RESULTS: Hippocampus volumes of patients with BPD and PTSD were smaller than those of healthy controls. However, there was no significant difference between patients with BPD but without PTSD and controls. Impulsiveness was positively correlated with hippocampus volumes in patients with BPD. LIMITATIONS: Our study did not allow for disentangling the effects of PTSD and traumatization. Another limitation was the relatively small sample size. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the importance of classifying subgroups of patients with BPD. Comorbid PTSD may be related to volumetric alterations in brain regions that are of central importance to our understanding of borderline psychopathology.
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 | 0.000 | 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".