Psychopathology and psychosocial functioning among young people with first-episode psychosis and/or first-presentation borderline personality disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One in five young people with first-episode psychosis (FEP) also presents with borderline personality disorder (BPD) features. Among people diagnosed with BPD, auditory verbal hallucinations occur in 29-50 % and delusions in 10-100 %. Co-occurrence of psychotic symptoms and BPD is associated with greater clinical severity and greater difficulty accessing evidence based FEP care. This study aimed to investigate psychotic symptoms and psychosocial functioning among young people presenting to an early intervention mental health service. METHOD: According to the presence or absence of either FEP or BPD, 141 participants, aged 15-25 years, were assigned to one of four groups: FEP, BPD, combined FEP + BPD, or clinical comparison (CC) participants with neither FEP nor BPD. Participants completed semi-structured diagnostic interviews and interviewer and self-report measures of psychopathology and psychosocial functioning. RESULTS: The FEP + BPD group had significantly more severe psychopathology and poorer psychosocial functioning than the FEP group on every measure, apart from intensity of hallucinations. Comparing the FEP or BPD groups, the BPD group had greater psychopathology, apart from intensity of psychotic symptoms, which was significantly greater in the FEP group. These two groups did not significantly differ in their overall psychosocial functioning. Compared with CC young people, both the FEP + BPD and BPD groups differed significantly on every measure, with medium to large effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Young people with co-occurring FEP and BPD experience more severe difficulties than young people with either diagnosis alone. This combination of psychosis and severe personality pathology has been longitudinally associated with poorer outcomes among adults and requires specific clinical attention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".