MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399435497 · doi:10.1186/s12888-024-05865-2

Mentalization based treatment for a broad range of personality disorders: a naturalistic study

2024· article· en· W4399435497 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Endang Rizzi, Jonas Weijers, Coriene ten Kate, Jean-Paul Selten

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Psychiatry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentalizationBorderline personality disorderPsychologyPersonalityClinical psychologyPersonality disordersPsychiatryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Several studies have observed that mentalization-based treatment (MBT) is an effective treatment for borderline personality disorder (BPD), but its effectiveness for other personality disorders (PDs) has hardly been examined. Additionally, the evidence supporting the claim that MBT improves mentalizing capacity is scarce. The present study examined whether (i) patients with a broad range of PDs enrolled in an MBT program would improve on several outcome measures (ii) mentalizing capacity would improve over time; (iii) patients with BPD would improve more than those with non-borderline PDs. METHOD: Personality disorders, psychiatric symptoms, social functioning, maladaptive personality functioning and mentalizing capacity were measured in a group of individuals with various PDs (n = 46) that received MBT. Assessments were made at baseline and after 6, 12, and 18 months of treatment. The severity of psychiatric symptoms, measured using the Outcome Questionnaire 45, was the primary outcome variable. RESULTS: .01). Bigger effect sizes were observed for BPD patients (n = 25) than for patients with non-BPD (n = 21), but the difference failed to reach statistical significance (p = 0.06). A primary analysis showed that the decrease in psychiatric symptoms was significant in BPD patients (p = 0.01), not in non-BPD (p = 0.19) patients. However, a sufficiently powered secondary analysis with imputed data showed that non-BPD patients reported a significant decrease in psychiatric symptoms too (p = 0.01). Mentalizing capacity of the whole group improved over time (d = .68 on the Toronto Alexithymia Scale and 1.46 on the Social Cognition and Object Relations System). DISCUSSION: These results suggest that MBT coincides with symptomatic and functional improvement across a broad range of PDs and shows that MBT is associated with improvements in mentalizing capacity. As the study is not experimental in design, we cannot make causal claims. CONCLUSION: Mentalization-based treatment may be an effective treatment for patients with a broad range of PDs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study design was approved by the Leiden University Ethical Committee.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PsychiatrySame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207