Understanding the inverse relationship between age and psychotic symptoms: The role of borderline personality traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is a well-established inverse relationship between age and positive psychotic symptoms, both in patients with psychotic disorders and in general population samples with psychotic experiences. The reason for this inverse relationship is unclear. We hypothesized that life-course developmental changes in borderline personality traits, which also typically decline with age, might explain the inverse relationship between age and positive psychotic symptoms. METHODS: We tested this hypothesis with data from 19,980 adults who completed 2000, 2007, and 2014 UK Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey studies. Hallucinations and delusions were assessed with the Psychosis Screening Questionnaire. Borderline features were assessed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders Screening Questionnaire. Logistic regression models with effect decompositions were used to conduct the analyses. RESULTS: As expected, age was negatively associated with hallucinations and delusions. These effects were wholly or mostly reduced after controlling for borderline features. Similar results were found in a subgroup of participants with a probable psychotic disorder. Repeating the analysis with a broad index of psychopathology severity instead of borderline features did not produce comparable results. Borderline factor scores reflecting identity/relationship disturbance, mood instability/anger, and self-harm/suicidality were created, all of which appeared to explain part of the inverse relationship between age and psychotic experiences. CONCLUSION: Declining borderline traits throughout adulthood may account for the reduced prevalence of positive psychotic symptoms in both clinical and non-clinical populations. Future research might evaluate the impact of treatments that target borderline traits on positive psychotic symptoms.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".