The Effect of Borderline Personality Pathology on Outcome of Cognitive Behavior Therapy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an evidence-based psychotherapeutic approach which has been shown to be an effective intervention for most psychiatric disorders. There are conflicting data in the literature regarding whether a comorbid personality disorder worsens the prognosis of CBT for depression, anxiety, and other complaints. This study examined data collected before and after courses of CBT for patients with significant borderline (n=39, 11.5%) or obsessive-compulsive (n=66, 19.4%) personality pathology or no personality disorder (n=235, 69.1%). A diagnosis of personality pathology was not a significant predictor of outcome in CBT as measured by the reliable change index. However, patients with borderline personality pathology did demonstrate a greater response to CBT than other patients in terms of improvement on several measures of symptoms. Patients with borderline personality pathology appear to enter therapy with greater subjective depression and interpersonal difficulty than other patients but achieve larger gains during therapy. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it