Delay discounting and response disinhibition under acute experimental stress in women with borderline personality disorder and adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Impulsivity is a core feature of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In BPD, impulsive behavior primarily occurs under acute stress; impulse control deficits under non-stress conditions may be partly related to co-morbid ADHD. We aimed to investigate whether acute experimental stress has an impact on self-reported impulsivity, response inhibition (action withholding, action cancelation) and delay discounting in BPD compared to ADHD. METHOD: Thirty female BPD patients, 28 female ADHD patients (excluding patients with co-morbid BPD and ADHD), and 30 female healthy controls (HC) completed self-reports and behavioral measures of impulsivity (IMT, assessing action withholding; GoStop, measuring action cancelation, Delay Discounting Task) under baseline conditions and after an experimental stress induction (Mannheim Multicomponent Stress Test). RESULTS: Both patient groups reported higher impulsivity than HC, ADHD reported higher trait impulsivity than BPD. On the IMT, ADHD showed significant action-withholding deficits under both conditions, while BPD performed significantly worse than HC under stress. In BPD but not ADHD and HC, action-withholding deficits (IMT) were significantly increased under stress compared to baseline, while no group/stress effects were found for action cancelation (GoStop). Delay discounting was significantly more pronounced in BPD than in HC (no stress effect was found). CONCLUSIONS: In BPD, behavioral deficits in action withholding (but not in action cancelation) appear to be influenced by acute experimental stress. Delay discounting seems to be a general feature of BPD, independent of co-morbid ADHD and acute stress, possibly underlying typical expressions of behavioral impulsivity in the disorder.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".