MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886257013 · doi:10.4414/sanp.2018.00598

Borderline-Störung: Behandlungsempfehlungen der SGPP

2018· article· de· W2886257013 on OpenAlexaff
Sebastian Euler, Gerhard Dammann, Katrin Endtner, Florian Leihener, Nader A. Perroud, Thomas Reisch, Klaus Schmeck, Daniel Sollberger, Marc Walter, Uëli Kramer

Bibliographic record

VenueSwiss Archives of Neurology Psychiatry and Psychotherapy · 2018
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMental Health and Psychiatry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBorderline personality disorderPsychiatryPsychologyPsychotherapistInterpersonal communicationClinical psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With 10% in outpatient and 15–25% in inpatient psychiatric care, borderline personality disorder (BPD) is the most clinically relevant personality ­disorder. There are special treatment difficulties, in the form of self-injury, suicidality, interpersonal problems and comorbid mental illness. Valid ­diagnosis and early treatment (as early as adolescence) are of particular importance for the prognosis. Treatment guidelines for BPD have been ­developed in several countries. Only a small proportion of patients, however, receive appropriate treatment. One possible reason for the failure of ­research results to transfer into practice is that only a few practical recommendations can be derived because of the strict focus of the guidelines on the quality of evidence. For the treatment recommendations of the Swiss Society for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy (SGPP), an extended approach was therefore adopted. On the basis of a synthesis of scientific evidence and good clinical practice, an expert consensus combines the best pos­sible specific statements to optimise the care of patients with BPD in ­Switzerland. This article summarises the key recommendations.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSwiss Archives of Neurology Psychiatry and PsychotherapySame topicMental Health and PsychiatryFrench-language works237,207