A randomized trial of brief dialectical behaviour therapy skills training in suicidal patients suffering from borderline disorder
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
OBJECTIVE: Evidence-based therapies for borderline personality disorder (BPD) are lengthy and scarce. Data on brief interventions are limited, and their role in the treatment of BPD is unclear. Our aim was therefore to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of brief dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) skills training as an adjunctive intervention for high suicide risk in patients with BPD. METHOD: Eighty-four out-patients were randomized to 20 weeks of DBT skills (n = 42) or a waitlist (WL; n = 42). The primary outcome was frequency of suicidal or non-suicidal self-injurious (NSSI) episodes. Assessments were conducted at baseline 10, 20 and 32 weeks. RESULTS: DBT participants showed greater reductions than the WL participants on suicidal and NSSI behaviours between baseline and 32 weeks (P < 0.0001). DBT participants showed greater improvements than controls on measures of anger, distress tolerance and emotion regulation at 32 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: This abbreviated intervention is a viable option that may be a useful adjunctive intervention for the treatment of high-risk behaviour associated with the acute phase of BPD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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