Pretreatment cognitive performance is associated with differential self-harm outcomes in 6 <i>v</i>. 12-months of dialectical behavior therapy for borderline personality disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Recent findings suggest that brief dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) for borderline personality disorder is effective for reducing self-harm, but it remains unknown which patients are likely to improve in brief v. 12 months of DBT. Research is needed to identify patient characteristics that moderate outcomes. Here, we characterized changes in cognition across brief DBT (DBT-6) v. a standard 12-month course (DBT-12) and examined whether cognition predicted self-harm outcomes in each arm. Methods In this secondary analysis of 240 participants in the FASTER study (NCT02387736), cognitive measures were administered at pre-treatment, after 6 months, and at 12 months. Self-harm was assessed from pre-treatment to 2-year follow-up. Multilevel models characterized changes in cognition across treatment. Generalized estimating equations examined whether pre-treatment cognitive performance predicted self-harm outcomes in each arm. Results Cognitive performance improved in both arms after 6 months of treatment, with no between-arm differences at 12-months. Pre-treatment inhibitory control was associated with different self-harm outcomes in DBT-6 v. DBT-12. For participants with average inhibitory control, self-harm outcomes were significantly better when assigned to DBT-12, relative to DBT-6, at 9–18 months after initiating treatment. In contrast, participants with poor inhibitory control showed better self-harm outcomes when assigned to brief DBT-6 v. DBT-12, at 12–24 months after initiating treatment. Conclusions This work represents an initial step toward an improved understanding of patient profiles that are best suited to briefer v. standard 12 months of DBT, but observed effects should be replicated in a waitlist-controlled study to confirm that they were treatment-specific.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".