The Role of Gender in Patients with Borderline Personality Disorder: Differences Related to Hopelessness, Alexithymia, Coping Strategies, and Sensory Profile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Gender differences are poorly investigated in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD), although they could be useful in determining the most appropriate pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment. The aim of the present study was to compare sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and the emotional and behavioral dimensions (such as coping, alexithymia, and sensory profile) between males and females with BPD. Material and Methods: Two hundred seven participants were recruited. Sociodemographic and clinical variables were collected through a self-administered questionnaire. The Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (AASP), Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS), Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE), and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) were administered. Results: Male patients with BPD showed more involuntary hospitalizations and greater use of alcohol and illicit substances compared to females. Conversely, females with BPD reported more frequent medication abuse than males. Furthermore, females had high levels of alexithymia and hopelessness. Regarding coping strategies, females with BPD reported higher levels of “restraint coping” and “use of instrumental social support” at COPE. Finally, females with BPD had higher scores in the Sensory Sensitivity and Sensation Avoiding categories at the AASP. Conclusions: Our study highlights gender differences in substance use, emotion expression, future vision, sensory perception, and coping strategies in patients with BPD. Further gender studies may clarify these differences and guide the development of specific and differential treatments in males and females 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".