Five-Factor Model and DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorder Profile Construction: Associations with Cognitive Ability and Clinical Symptoms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although numerous studies have explored latent profiles using the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of normative personality, no studies have investigated how broad personality traits (i.e., FFM) and pathological personality traits using the alternative model of personality disorder (AMPD) may combine for latent personality profiles. The present study recruited outpatients (N = 201) who completed the Big Five Aspects Scales (BFAS), Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID-I/P), gambling and alcohol use measures, and the Weschler Intelligence subtests. When FFM and AMPD measures were combined, latent profile analyses revealed four profiles, Internalizing-Thought disorder, Externalizing, Average-Detached, and Adaptive. Detachment and openness to experience were the most and least essential traits for profile distinction, respectively. No associations between group membership and cognitive ability measures were found. Internalizing-Thought disorder membership was linked with a current mood and anxiety disorder diagnosis. Externalizing profile membership was associated with younger age, problematic gambling, alcohol use, and a current substance use disorder diagnosis. The four FFM-AMPD profiles overlapped with the four FFM-only and three AMPD-only profiles. Overall, the FFM-AMPD profiles appeared to have better convergent and discriminant validity with DSM-relevant psychopathology.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it