Borderline personality disorder and social connectedness: A systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a debilitating disorder characterized by deficits in social connectedness, which is a multifaceted construct with structural (i.e., the number, diversity, or frequency of social relationships), functional (i.e., the actual or perceived resources relationships provide), and quality (i.e., the positive and negative aspects of social relationships) elements (Holt-Lunstad, 2018). However, the literature is sparse and lacks integration regarding which specific elements of social connectedness are deficient in BPD and why. This systematic review synthesized the literature on the bidirectional relationship of social connectedness and BPD. Electronic searches of three databases (i.e., PsycInfo, PsycArticles, and PubMed) identified 1,962 articles which underwent title and abstract screening and, if potentially eligible, full-text review. Sixty two articles met the eligibility criteria and underwent data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Cross-sectional research supported associations between BPD and problems in structural, functional, and quality social connectedness, with most research underscoring deficits in quality social connectedness. Preliminary longitudinal research suggested that BPD pathology predicts problems across these domains, but little to no research exists testing the reverse direction. Although people with BPD may not have difficulties forming relationships, they exhibit a range of problems within those relationships. BPD may elicit such problems in social connectedness, but it is unclear whether such issues reciprocally exacerbate and elicit BPD, and longitudinal research investigating such directionality is needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".