A case series of sage: a new couple-based intervention for borderline personality disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research suggests that interpersonal dysfunction may be central to borderline personality disorder (BPD), and that the relationships of people with BPD are particularly impaired. Further, the significant others of people with BPD exhibit elevated psychological problems but little access to mental healthcare. Despite this, most BPD interventions are delivered individually and do not routinely incorporate significant others. This manuscript presents the first case series of Sage, a 12-session manualized intervention for people with borderline personality disorder (BPD) and their intimate partners with three targets: a) BPD severity, b) relationship conflict, and c) intimate partner mental health. FINDINGS: Five couples of people with BPD with frequent suicidal/self-injurious behavior or high suicidal ideation and their intimate partners received Sage. Measures of Sage targets as well as tertiary outcomes were administered at pre-, mid-, and post-intervention. Four out of five dyads completed Sage, with high intervention satisfaction ratings. Improvements were generally demonstrated in BPD severity, suicidal ideation, and suicidal behavior/self-injury. Half of dyads exhibited improvements in conflict, and additional improvements in mental health outcomes for dyad members were demonstrated. One dyad exhibited poor outcomes and speculations regarding this are offered. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide proof of concept of Sage as an intervention that can improve BPD and other mental health outcomes in those with BPD and their intimate partners. Incorporating intimate partners into BPD treatment may optimize and expedite its outcomes. However, further testing is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This project was pre-registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: [NCT04737252]).
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".