MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283593491 · doi:10.3390/jcm11133685

The Use of Computer-Driven Technologies in the Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder: A Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4283593491 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Hudon, Caroline Gaudreau-Ménard, Marissa Bouchard-Boivin, Francis Godin, Lionel Cailhol

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsCollège de MaisonneuveUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLPsycINFOPsychological interventionTelehealthBorderline personality disorderSystematic reviewMEDLINEInclusion (mineral)The InternetTelemedicinePsychotherapistClinical psychologyPsychiatryWorld Wide WebHealth careSocial psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the effectiveness of computer-driven technologies for treatment of patients suffering from BPD. A systematic literature review was conducted using the Pubmed, EMBASE, PsycNET (PsycINFO), CINAHL and Google Scholar electronic databases for the period from their inception dates until 2022. Thirty studies were selected for abstract screening. Seven studies were excluded for not meeting inclusion criteria. The remaining 23 studies were fully assessed, and 12 were excluded. Therefore, 11 studies were included in the analysis of the effectiveness of computer-driven technologies, which encompassed mobile applications, telehealth interventions, internet-based interventions, virtual reality MBT and dialogue-based integrated interventions. Computer-driven interventions are showing signs of effectiveness in the treatment of BPD symptoms. The limited number of articles found on the subject demonstrates a need for further exploration of this subject.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.308
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207