A cross‐sectional study of auditory verbal hallucinations experienced by people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The presence of auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs) does not currently feature in the main diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder (BPD). However, there is accumulating evidence that a high proportion of BPD patients report longstanding and frequent AVHs which constitute a significant risk factor for suicide plans and attempts, and hospitalization. AIM: This study addressed questions about the validity and phenomenology of AVHs in the context of BPD. The longer-term aim is to facilitate the development and translation of treatment approaches to address the unmet need of this population. METHOD: This was a cross-sectional study, combining phenomenological and psychological assessments administered in person and online. We explored the experiences of 48 patients with a diagnosis of BPD who were hearing AVHs. RESULTS: Participants gave 'consistent' reports on the measure of AVH phenomenology, suggesting that these experiences were legitimate. Similar to AVHs in a psychosis context, AVHs were experienced as distressing and appraised as persecutory. AVHs were found to be weakly associated with BPD symptoms. AVHs were also rated highly as a treatment priority by the majority of participants. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that AVH is a legitimate and distressing symptom of BPD and a treatment priority for some patients. The relative independence of AVHs from other BPD symptoms and emotional states suggests that psychological treatment may need to be targeted specifically at the symptom of AVHs. This treatment could be adapted from cognitive behaviour therapy, the psychological intervention that is recommended for the treatment of AVHs in the context of psychosis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".