The role of nociceptive input and tissue injury on stress regulation in borderline personality disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 60% to 90% of patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) show nonsuicidal self-injurious behavior (NSSI) with cutting being the most frequently applied method. One of NSSI's functions is to reduce aversive tension. Previous studies have found a tension-reducing effect of painful tissue injury by an incision. It is still unclear whether this effect is based on the effect of tissue injury or the effect of pain experience, or both. The aim of this study was to determine whether tissue injury leads to a stronger stress reduction than a sole pain stimulus in patients with BPD. After stress induction, 57 BPD patients and 60 healthy controls (HCs) received either an incision or a non-tissue-injuring mechanical nociceptive stimulus ("blade") typically perceived as painful or a non-nociceptive tactile sham stimulus (blunt end of scalpel). Participants were unaware of which procedure was applied. For stress assessment, subjective and objective parameters were measured. As immediate response to the stimulus application, we found greater stress reduction after both painful stimuli (incision and blade) in BPD patients but no difference in stress decrease between the tissue-injuring incision and the non-tissue-injuring pain stimulus (blade). Compared with HCs, incision and blade were followed by greater immediate decrease of arousal in BPD patients. Our findings confirm that among BPD patients, the nociceptive input leads to stress reduction. In contrast, the impact of tissue damage on stress reduction was relatively small. In addition, the results suggest that painful stimuli lead to a greater stress reduction in BPD patients compared with HCs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".