Comparison of the Phenomenology of Hallucination and Delusion Characteristics in People Diagnosed With Borderline Personality Disorder and Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hallucinations and delusions in borderline personality disorder (BPD) are understudied. The authors explore the phenomenology of multisensory hallucinations and delusions in individuals with BPD and compare them to those in individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD). Clinical psychopathology was also explored. Eighty-nine adults participated and were categorized into four groups: BPD with voices, BPD without voices, SSD with high BPD traits, and SSD with low BPD traits. Among individuals with BPD, 81% reported visual and tactile hallucinations, 75% reported olfactory hallucinations, and 94% experienced delusions. When comparing BPD with and without voices, there were no significant differences in nonpsychotic psychopathology. Slight differences were found when hallucinations in BPD were compared with hallucinations in SSD, but overall the experiences were similar across diagnoses. The BPD group also reported significantly higher rates of paranoia/suspiciousness and delusions of guilt than the SSD group. Multisensory hallucinations and delusions occur in BPD and should be explored when treating people with BPD.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".