Refining personality disorder subtypes and classification using finite mixture modeling.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) diagnostic system for Axis II disorders continues to be characterized by considerable heterogeneity and poor discriminant validity. Such problems impede accurate personality disorder (PD) diagnosis. As a result, alternative assessment tools are often used in conjunction with the DSM. One popular framework is the object relational model developed by Kernberg and his colleagues (J. F. Clarkin, M. F. Lenzenweger, F. Yeomans, K. N. Levy, & O. F. Kernberg, 2007, An object relations model of borderline pathology, Journal of Personality Disorders, Vol. 21, pp. 474-499; O. F. Kernberg, 1984, Severe Personality Disorders, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; O. F. Kernberg & E. Caligor, 2005, A psychoanalytic theory of personality disorders, in M. F. Lenzenweger & J. F. Clarkin, Eds., Major Theories of Personality Disorder, New York, NY: Guilford Press). Drawing on this model and empirical studies thereof, the current study attempted to clarify Kernberg's (1984) PD taxonomy and identify subtypes within a sample with varying levels of personality pathology using finite mixture modeling. Subjects (N = 141) were recruited to represent a wide range of pathology. The finite mixture modeling results indicated that 3 components were harbored within the variables analyzed. Group 1 was characterized by low levels of antisocial, paranoid, and aggressive features, and Group 2 was characterized by elevated paranoid features. Group 3 revealed the highest levels across the 3 variables. The validity of the obtained solution was then evaluated by reference to a variety of external measures that supported the validity of the identified grouping structure. Findings generally appear congruent with previous research, which argued that a PD taxonomy based on paranoid, aggressive, and antisocial features is a viable supplement to current diagnostic systems. Our study suggests that Kernberg's object relational model offers a plausible substantive aid in refining PD classification.
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 | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".