Alexithymia and self-harm in people with borderline personality disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To estimate the prevalence of alexithymia and self-harm in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). To assess the role of alexithymia in the emergence of self-harm in patients with BPD. Material and methods. We studied 104 patients (85 women, 19 men aged 21 to 25 years (64.4%)), including 54 patients with and 50 patients without BPD. Most of them had incomplete higher education (55%). We used the Russian version of the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) to reveal alexithymia and SCID-II to diagnose BPD. The presence of self-harm behavior was confirmed by the subjects’ anamnesis data. Results. The prevalence of alexithymia in patients with BPD was 83.3%, in the control group it was 52% (p=0.001). The prevalence of self-aggression was 70.3% (n=38) in patients with BPD, and 12% (n=6) in people without BPD. Self-harm among persons with alexithymia was noted in 62.5% (n=45). During the analysis, a connection between auto-aggression and alexithymia was found at the level of a statistical trend (p=0.051). Conclusion. Alexithymia and self-harm are more common in patients with BPD than in healthy people. This type of emotional dysregulation mediates self-harm in patients 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".