Time to put aside the false dichotomy between personality disorders and psychotic symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlike internalizing and externalizing symptoms, psychotic symptoms (e.g., hallucinations, delusions) are manifestations of personality disorders (PDs) that are more controversial and poorly understood. This leaves clinicians with very little guidance for clinical practice, especially for diagnosis. What is more, most reviews have focused strictly on the links between psychotic symptoms and the categorically defined borderline PD, which contrasts with the growing movement that emphasizes a dimensional perspective (especially in psychology). Thus, the objectives of this critical review will be to (a) expose typical cases where PDs and psychotic symptoms might cooccur; (b) assess the state of scientific knowledge surrounding PD and psychotic symptoms; and (c) provide clinicians and researchers with recommendations to keep the field moving forward. We conclude that researchers and clinicians should move past the false "PD or psychosis" dichotomy since they often cooccur, avoid (as far as possible) making psychotic symptoms an exclusion criterion in PD research to enhance ecological validity, and consider dimensional PD diagnosis as a potential unifying solution to the dilemma posed by this cooccurrence.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".