MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896355522 · doi:10.1521/pedi_2018_32_403

All-Cause Mortality of Hospital-Treated Borderline Personality Disorder: A Nationwide Cohort Study

2018· article· en· W2896355522 on OpenAlexaff
Jesper Kjær, Robert Biskin, Claus Høstrup Vestergaard, Povl Munk-J�rgensen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Disorders · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBorderline personality disorderDanishMedicineMortality ratePsychiatryPediatricsCohort studyPopulationComorbidityStandardized mortality ratioInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) are known to present frequently in emergency rooms, and they have a high rate of suicide. The mortality rate of patients with BPD is still unclear. The Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register and The Danish Register for Causes of Death were used to identify patients with a first-ever diagnosis of BPD (ICD-10: F60.31) from 1995 through 2011 together with time and cause of death. A total of 10,545 patients with a BPD diagnosis were followed for a mean time of 7.98 years. A total of 547 deaths were registered. The standardized mortality ratio of patients with BPD compared to the general population was 8.3 (95% CI [7.6, 9.1]). More than three inpatient admissions per year or a comorbid diagnosis of substance use disorder correlated with a higher mortality rate. The increased mortality rate in patients with BPD treated in secondary care emphasizes that it is a severe mental 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations51
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality DisordersSame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207