MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2935822269 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbz018.413

F1. MENTALIZATION MEDIATES THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CHILDHOOD INTERPERSONAL TRAUMAS AND CLINICAL FEATURES OF SCHIZOID, SCHIZOTYPAL AND PARANOID PERSONALITY DISORDERS

2019· article· en· W2935822269 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Berthelot, Roxanne Lemieux, Dominick Gamache, Claudia Savard

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentalizationPsychologyPersonality disordersClinical psychologyBorderline personality disorderPersonalityInterpersonal communicationChild abusePsychosisPsychiatryPoison controlPsychotherapistSuicide preventionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exposure to childhood interpersonal traumas is a significant risk factor for the emergence of schizoid, schizotypal and paranoid personality disorders (Bierer et al., 2003; Waxman et al., 2014). However, most children exposed to interpersonal traumas do not present such disorders during adulthood and the developmental mechanisms of risk remain to be clarified. The concept of mentalization may contribute to our understanding of these developmental trajectories considering that (1) mentalization is a definite protective factor in the context of trauma (Berthelot et al., 2014), (2) mentalization would play a key role in the emergence or exacerbation of psychosis and psychotic-related disorders (Debanné & Toffel, 2019), and that (3) mentalization was shown to mediate the association between childhood trauma and negative symptoms in psychotic patients (Weijers et al., 2018). A sample of 188 adults (78% women, Mage = 28.9, SDage = 5.22) from the community, including 69 participants with a history of abuse or neglect, completed self-report measures of interpersonal traumas (Childhood Trauma Questionnaires), personality disorders (Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire for DSM-IV revised), mentalization (Reflective Functioning Questionnaire) and mentalization of trauma (Trauma-Specific Reflective Functioning Questionnaire). Structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses were conducted to evaluate whether participants’ mentalization abilities mediated the association between childhood interpersonal traumas and features of schizotypal, schizoid and paranoid personality disorders. Adults exposed to childhood interpersonal traumas (M = 7.23, SD = 3.93) were more likely to report clinical features of the Cluster A personality disorders than participants without trauma (M = 4.47, SD = 2.95), t(106.92) = -4.97, p < .001. Indices of the SEM indicate a good fit for the theoretical model: CFI = 0.98, Normed Fit Index (NFI) = .95, RMSEA = .06 and χ2(8, N = 188) = 11.73 p = .16. Trauma-specific mentalization partially mediated the association between childhood trauma and features of schizotypal, schizoid and paranoid personality disorders. General mentalization was not associated with trauma but further contributed to Cluster A personality disorders. The results suggest that mentalization is a protective factor against the emergence of clinical features of schizoid, schizotypal and paranoid personality disorders in people exposed to interpersonal traumas during their childhood. The ability to mentalize about traumatic experiences (i.e. the ability to reflect on the psychological and relational impacts of trauma, as well as to think of traumatic experiences in a coherent fashion, without denying it or taking the blame), more than general mentalization abilities (i.e. the ability to think of behaviors in terms of underlying mental states), was associated with the features of Cluster A personality disorders. Results suggest that timely delivered mentalization-based interventions with survivors of childhood traumas could protect against the emergence of disorders characterized by social awkwardness and social withdrawal.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.004

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchizophrenia BulletinSame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207