Exploring screening for borderline personality disorder in pediatric inpatients with psychiatric Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is a severe psychiatric illness associated with poor personal and interpersonal functioning. Screening for BPD in adolescents and provision of specialized treatment may improve life circumstances in vocations and relationships. The purpose of this study was to determine the number of pediatric inpatients who would screen positive for BPD with a self-rating measure, and to compare their personal and interpersonal characteristics with youth who did not screen positive. A survey with self-report measures was administered to patients to screen for BPD. The mean age of the sample was 15 years and 71% identified as female gender. Of 109 patients 72 (66%) screened positive for BPD while only eight (7%) patients were diagnosed by psychiatrists with BPD or features of BPD. There were no statistically significant differences between those who scored positive versus negative for BPD in age, gender, or avoidant anxiety. There were statistically significant differences in anxious attachment, distress, clinical symptoms, problematic use of electronic devices, considered suicide, past trauma and prior suspensions from school. This exploration in pediatric inpatients suggests that many of these patients may be at risk for a diagnosis of BPD later in life and may benefit from early identification and specialized intervention.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".