The clinical trajectory of patients with borderline personality disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The epidemiological data on the diagnostic course of patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) is limited. We used a nationwide register to investigate the diagnostic stability and changes over time. METHOD: The Danish nationwide registers were used to follow all patients with a diagnosis of BPD and investigate their first-ever psychiatric diagnosis and their latest diagnosis in the time period of 1995-2012. From this, we found the diagnostic stability and described the diagnostic changes. RESULTS: A total of 10 786 patients diagnosed with BPD were identified. The prospective diagnostic stabilities were 37% for females and 25% for males, and retrospective stabilities were 20% for females and 22% for males. More than 60% of patients received other diagnoses than BPD as their first-ever diagnosis. Stress-related (17%) and depressive disorders (14%) were most frequent as first-ever diagnosis. The latest diagnosis remained BPD in nearly half of females and one third of males, followed by schizophrenia, notably for those with longer follow-up and males. CONCLUSION: This study gives a detailed display of complicated clinical trajectories. The low diagnostic stabilities demonstrate a heterogenous patient group diagnosed with many other psychiatric diagnoses over time. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".