Continuity between DSM-5 Categorical Criteria and Traits Criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) includes a heterogeneous constellation of symptoms operationalized with 9 categorical criteria. As the field of personality disorder (PD) research moves to emphasize dimensional traits in its operationalization, it is important to delineate continuity between the 9 DSM-IV/Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) categorical criteria for BPD and the trait dimensions in DSM-5 Section III. To date, no study has attempted such validation. METHODS: We examined the associations between the 9 categorical DSM-IV/DSM-5 criteria for BPD and the trait dimensions of the alternative DSM-5 model for PDs in consecutively recruited psychiatric outpatients (N = 142; 68% female; age: mean 29.02, SD 8.38). This was investigated by means of bivariate correlations, followed by multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The categorical BPD criteria were associated with conceptually related DSM-5 Section III traits (P > 0.001), except for the criterion of chronic feelings of emptiness. Consistent with the proposed traits criteria for BPD in DSM-5 Section III, we found Emotional lability, Anxiousness, Separation insecurity, Depressivity, Impulsivity, Risk taking, and Hostility to capture conceptually coherent BPD categorical criteria, while Suspiciousness was also strongly associated with BPD criteria. At the domain level, this applied to Negative affectivity, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism. Notably, Emotional lability, Impulsivity, and Suspiciousness emerged as unique predictors of BPD (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the proposed BPD traits criteria, Suspiciousness and features of Psychoticism also augment BPD features. Provided that these findings are replicated in forthcoming research, a modified traits operationalization of BPD is warranted.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".