How to Assess Recovery in Borderline Personality Disorder: Psychosocial Functioning and Satisfaction With Life in a Sample of Former DBT Study Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Longitudinal studies provide substantial evidence for a high rate of symptomatic remission in borderline personality disorder (BPD), while social and vocational functioning seems to remain consistently impaired. Less data is available on recovery and the associated objective and personal indicators. We examined 58 patients 12–18 years after their diagnosis of BPD and compared two different recovery criteria: observer-based global assessment of functioning and self-rated satisfaction with life (SWL). Symptomatic remission was observed in 81% of the participants (according to DSM-IV), but only 44% of them achieved a GAF level > 60, and only 49% reported SWL within the range of one standard deviation of the normal population. In line with previous research, our data show that DSM symptom remission alone is an insufficient indicator for recovery from BPD. Replacing the GAF with patient-reported satisfaction with life considers empowerment in BPD and offers an efficient alternative criterion for recovery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".