Affect regulation in psychoanalytic treatments of patients with a borderline personality disorder–psychoanalysis and psychodynamic psychotherapy–a comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent meta-analysis has confirmed that the effects of psychotherapy on patients with borderline personality disorders (BPD) are still insufficiently understood. Evidence of differences between different types of therapies has been questioned. AIM: To study repetitive interaction patterns in patients with BPD undergoing either psychoanalysis or psychodynamic therapy. METHODS: = 10), semiannually, recordings (audio or video) of five consecutive therapy sessions were taken over three years for an ex-post analysis. The patients' characteristics, such as affect parameters [Affect regulation and experience Q-sort (AREQ)], quality of object relations (quality of object relations scale) and personality traits [Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure (SWAP-200)] were analyzed retrospectively by independent raters. Therapeutic action (psychotherapy process Q-sort) and affective (re)actions of the patients (AREQ) were then analyzed in relation to changes found in the patients' characteristics. RESULTS: ± 7.94). Our assumption that transference interpretations, closely followed by affective changes in the patient, could be useful modes of interaction was reproducible in our findings, especially when looking at the descriptive findings in the long-term data. The analysis of repetitive interaction structures demonstrated a very specific "time-lag" between therapeutic intervention and a corresponding increase in positive affect in successful therapy cases. CONCLUSION: Exploring the change processes in the patients' characteristics and linking these changes to specific treatment strategies is of clinical importance when starting treatment and for its long-term progress.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".