Delineating the unique contributions of mindfulness skills in predicting engagement in suicide attempts and non-suicidal self-injury among individuals with borderline personality disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current research tested whether four dimensions of mindfulness – acceptance without judgment, observing, describing and acting with awareness – taught during 20 weeks of dialectical behavior therapy skills training (DBT-ST) predicted frequency of two forms of self-inflicted injury (SII), i.e. suicide attempts (SAs) and non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), at baseline and mediated the relationship between pre-post treatment change in frequency of SAs/NSSI and DBT-ST. Eighty-four suicidal individuals with borderline personality disorder were enrolled in a single-blinded randomized trial comparing DBT-ST treatment to a waitlist control group. A series of regressions revealed no relationship between dimensions of mindfulness and self-inflicted injury at baseline. Although no significant effect of DBT-ST on SAs was found, a causal mediation analysis revealed acceptance without judgment significantly mediated the relation between DBT-ST and change in frequency of NSSI.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".