Is it possible to study sleep patterns in adolescent borderline personality disorder? An actigraphic feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is characterized by severe instability in mood, impulse control, relationships and sleep patterns, alongside with mild cognitive disturbances in some patients. Although research on adolescent BPD has developed over the last decade, little is known about circadian sleep-wake patterns in this population. Low compliance and cooperation frequently reported in these patients impede data collection. Therefore, research had to introduce non-invasive objective measurements such as actigraphy while minimizing attrition and resurgence of suicidal ideation. This article examined the feasibility of an actigraphic study with BPD adolescents. Eighteen BPD adolescents (13-17 years old) were recruited from a specialized outpatient mood disorders clinic and asked to wear an actigraph for nine days including two weekends. Twelve (66.7%) of the 18 BPD patients who consented kept the actigraph for an average of 11.00 days (SD: 2.04), thus completing the required 9-day period. The reasons surrounding difficulties during the experiment, such as aversive emotions during interviews, dermal irritation, fragile alliance with the research assistant, are described. The factors that contributed the most to our satisfactory compliance rate included stabilized mood before inclusion, close ties between the research and the clinical teams, rapid access to an emergency psychiatric assessment if needed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".