Empathy, Alexithymia, and Theory of Mind in Borderline Personality Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to determine the differences in empathy, alexithymia features, and theory of mind between healthy controls and patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). Thirty-five patients with BPD and 35 healthy controls were included in the study. To measure the clinical variables, the Empathy Quotient (EQ), Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), Barratt Impulsivity Scale-11 (BIS-11), and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) were applied. We found that the BPD group had significantly worse total RMET and neutral RMET scores than the control group. There were no differences in the EQ scores between the BPD and control groups. The patients with BPD were more alexithymic than the controls, and alexithymia and depression scores predicted BPD status. Patients with BPD who have difficulty identifying their own emotions tend to display deficits in perceptions of facial emotions, which, in turn, may lead to misperceptions of social signals and thus contribute to excessive emotional intensity and tension in social situations. The study results reveal that alexithymia and depression are important variables in predicting BPD traits.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".