A retrospective chart review: adolescents with borderline personality disorder, borderline personality traits, and controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With an estimated lifetime prevalence as high as 5.9% in the general population, borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a psychiatric disorder characterized by marked impulsivity as well as difficulties in interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects. The burden on the health care system is immense with BPD patients accounting for 10%-20% of the patients in mental health outpatient facilities and 15%-40% in mental health inpatient facilities. Further, while 75%-80% of BPD patients attempt to commit suicide, 10% succeed; this mortality rate exceeds even that of anorexia nervosa which, with a weighted mortality rate of 5.1%, has often been considered to have the highest mortality rate of any mental disorder. In order to provide treatment and to implement preventative measures, a risk profile as well as clinical features must be identified within the adolescent population. This is presently crucial, as the current criteria for BPD are not developmentally focused, and as a result, criteria initially developed for the adult population are being applied in diagnoses of adolescents. A population of adolescents (n=80) between 16 and 19 years of age meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) criteria either for BPD traits (n=46) or for BPD (n=36) were included in a retrospective chart review; a control group consisting of n=30 mood and anxiety control subjects were included to allow for further comparisons. Complex significant differences were discovered between the three groups in the following areas: history of sexual abuse, suicidal ideation, internalizing/externalizing symptoms, interpersonal difficulties, impulsivity, pre-perinatal stress, bullying, substance abuse, anxiety disorders, disruptive disorders, and finally, learning disorders.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".