MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213188191 · doi:10.1177/00048674221077029

A systematic scoping review of dissociation in borderline personality disorder and implications for research and clinical practice: Exploring the fog

2022· article· en· W4213188191 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBorderline personality disorderPsycINFODissociativeClinical psychologyPsychologyCINAHLAnxietyDissociative disordersPsychiatryComorbidityMEDLINESystematic reviewPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is frequently complicated by the presence of dissociative symptoms. Pathological dissociation is linked with earlier and more severe trauma exposure, emotional dysregulation and worse treatment outcomes in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Dissociative Disorders, with implications for BPD. OBJECTIVE: A systematic scoping review was conducted to assess the extent of current literature regarding the impact of dissociation on BPD and to identify knowledge gaps. METHODS: Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus) were searched, and English peer-reviewed studies with adults with BPD were included, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) 2018 guidelines. RESULTS: Most of the 70 included studies were observational (98%) with first authors from Germany (59%). Overall, dissociation was associated with increased BPD symptom severity, self-harm and reduced psychotherapy treatment response; findings regarding suicide risk were mixed. Dissociation was associated with working memory and cognitive deficits, decreased pain perception, altered body ownership, no substance abuse or the abuse of sedative substances, increased fantasy proneness, personality fragmentation, fearful attachment, dream anxiety, perceived stress and altered stress responses, increased cumulative body mass index, decreased water consumption, several neurological correlates and changes in gene expression. CONCLUSION: BPD with significant dissociative symptoms may constitute a more severe and at-risk subgroup of BPD patients. However, there are significant research gaps and methodological issues in the area, including the possibility of unrecognized Dissociative Disorders in BPD study populations confounding results. Further studies are needed to better understand the impact of dissociation on BPD course and treatment, and to clarify the most appropriate assessment tools for clinical practice. In addition, interventional studies are needed to develop dissociation-specific BPD treatments to determine whether targeting dissociation in BPD can improve treatment outcomes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.145
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it