Re: Recent Advances in the Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dr Paris' article on the treatment of BPD and Dr Livesley's article on strategies for treating personality disorder, both in July's Journal, were good reviews serving to combat undue pessimism in the treatment of those disorders (1,2).Both authors refer to day treatment as an evidence-based alternative for patients in crisis (1, p 439; 2, p 446).It is important to understand that the day treatment program we studied, using a randomized controlled design, is not for patients in crisis (3,4).This program is designed for patients who are able to tolerate intensive self-and behavioural exploration.It corresponds to Livesley's stage of "exploration and change" (2, p 448) in the sequence of strategies for treating personality disorder.Such day treatment programs are highly specialized, requiring competent leadership and several years of staff training to become effective (5).Day treatment programs should be distinguished from day hospitals, which are units designed as an alternative to inpatient care (6).Ideally, day hospitals for patients with personality disorders might operate on Livesley's principles of "safety and managing crises" and "containment" (2, p 446).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".