The relationship between emptiness and suicide and <scp>self‐injury</scp> urges in borderline personality disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Suicide and self-injury (SSI) are pervasive among individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD), yet little research has examined factors that increase SSI urges among those with BPD. Emptiness is a diagnostic criterion of BPD that is associated with SSI behaviors, but its impact on SSI urges in BPD is poorly understood. This study investigates the association between emptiness and SSI urges at baseline and in response to a stressor (i.e., reactivity) among individuals with BPD. METHODS: Forty individuals with BPD participated in an experimental procedure where they rated their degree of emptiness and SSI urges at baseline and in response to an interpersonal stressor. Generalized estimating equations tested whether emptiness predicts baseline SSI urges and SSI urge reactivity. RESULTS: Higher emptiness predicted higher baseline suicide urges (B = 0.006, SE = 0.002, p < 0.001), but not baseline self-injury urges (p = 0.081). Emptiness did not significantly predict suicide urge reactivity (p = 0.731) nor self-injury urge reactivity (p = 0.446). CONCLUSION: Assessing and targeting emptiness may facilitate the reduction of suicide urges in BPD. Future research should investigate treatment strategies for reducing SSI risk among individuals with BPD via targeting emptiness.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".