Harmonizing early intervention strategies: scoping review of clinical high risk for psychosis and borderline personality disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims To map studies assessing both clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) and borderline personality disorder (BPD) in clinical samples, focusing on clinical/research/preventive paradigms and proposing informed research recommendations. Methods We conducted a PRISMA-ScR/JBI-compliant scoping review (protocol: https://osf.io/8mz7a ) of primary research studies (cross-sectional/longitudinal designs) using valid measures/criteria to assess CHR-P and BPD (threshold/subthreshold) in clinical samples, reporting on CHR-P/psychotic symptoms and personality disorder(s) in the title/abstract/keywords, identified in Web of Science/PubMed/(EBSCO)PsycINFO until 23/08/2023. Results 33 studies were included and categorized into four themes reflecting their respective clinical/research/preventive paradigm: (i) BPD as a comorbidity in CHR-P youth (k = 20), emphasizing early detection and intervention in psychosis; (ii) attenuated psychosis syndrome (APS) as a comorbidity among BPD inpatients (k = 2), with a focus on hospitalized adolescents/young adults admitted for non-psychotic mental disorders; (iii) mixed samples (k = 7), including descriptions of early intervention services and referral pathways; (iv) transdiagnostic approaches (k = 4) highlighting “clinical high at risk mental state” (CHARMS) criteria to identify a pluripotent risk state for severe mental disorders. Conclusion The scoping review reveals diverse approaches to clinical care for CHR-P and BPD, with no unified treatment strategies. Recommendations for future research should focus on: (i) exploring referral pathways across early intervention clinics to promote timely intervention; (ii) enhancing early detection strategies in innovative settings such as emergency departments; (iii) improving mental health literacy to facilitate help-seeking behaviors; (iv) analysing comorbid disorders as complex systems to better understand and target early psychopathology; (v) investigating prospective risk for BPD; (vi) developing transdiagnostic interventions; (vii) engaging youth with lived experience of comorbidity to gain insight on their subjective experience; (viii) understanding caregiver burden to craft family-focused interventions; (ix) expanding research in underrepresented regions such as Africa and Asia, and; (x) evaluating the cost-effectiveness of early interventions to determine scalability across different countries. Systematic Review Registration https://osf.io/8mz7a .
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 | 0.074 | 0.244 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.048 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".