Borderline Personality Disorder and Disordered Eating Behaviour: The Mediating Role of Rejection Sensitivity.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between disordered eating behaviour and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) in a clinical population of adolescent girls. We hypothesized that BPD and disordered eating would be strongly associated and that this association would be partially mediated by rejection sensitivity. METHOD: Participants were 73 female patients aged 11-18 presenting for mental health treatment at an outpatient psychiatry clinic in a large metropolitan hospital. Measures used in this study include the Diagnostic Interview for Borderline Personality Disorder-Revised, Borderline Personality Questionnaire and The Short Screen for Eating Disorders. RESULTS: Youth with BPD had significantly more disordered eating behaviour compared to controls. Of the nine facets of BPD, eight were highly correlated with disordered eating, suggesting important shared variance between the constructs of BPD and disordered eating. This study also demonstrated that rejection sensitivity significantly mediated the relationship between BPD symptoms and disordered eating. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides a novel association between a diagnosis of BPD in adolescents and disordered eating and the mediation effect of rejection sensitivity. These findings suggest that disordered eating should be screened in BPD samples and interventions targeting rejection sensitivity may be of clinical use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".