Eating disorders and the nine symptoms of borderline personality disorder: A systematic review and series of meta‐analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Eating disorders and borderline personality disorder have high rates of comorbidity. However, the extent to which individual BPD symptoms are elevated in patients with EDs is largely unknown. Meta-analyses examined: (1) which of the nine BPD symptoms are especially elevated in individuals with versus without EDs, (2) whether particular ED subtypes have elevated levels of certain BPD symptoms, and (3) which BPD symptoms remain unstudied/understudied in relation to EDs. METHODS: We performed nine separate meta-analyses (one for each BPD symptom) to compare levels of symptoms in patients with EDs versus healthy controls. A total of 122 studies (range = 4-34 studies across symptoms) were included. RESULTS: Affective instability was the BPD symptom most elevated, while anger was the BPD symptom least elevated, in patients with EDs compared to controls. When comparing effect sizes across ED subtypes, anorexia nervosa binge-eating/purging subtype had the largest effect sizes for the greatest number of BPD symptoms, while effect sizes for AN restrictive subtype were not significantly larger than those of other EDs for any BPD symptom. The least studied BPD symptoms were identity disturbance and interpersonal difficulties. DISCUSSION: These meta-analyses suggest that certain symptoms of BPD play a more prominent role in the comorbidity between BPD and EDs than others. Targeting affective instability when treating cases of comorbid ED and BPD may be especially likely to ameliorate the negative outcomes related to this comorbidity. Future research should further investigate identity disturbance and interpersonal difficulties in the context of EDs. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: Having an eating disorder and borderline personality disorder is a common comorbidity associated with a severe clinical presentation. BPD is characterized by nine distinct symptoms. This research examined levels of individual BPD symptoms in patients with versus without EDs. Findings can guide researchers and clinicians towards studying and treating symptoms that may be most relevant for BPD-ED comorbidity and in turn, improve outcomes for these patients.
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 | 0.014 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".