Emotion word repertoire in the adult attachment interview is linked to reduced suicide attempts in patients with borderline personality disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study explored the association between emotion word repertoire (EWR), attachment, reflective functioning and personality organization (PO) and suicidal behavior in borderline personality disorder (BPD) patients. Methods: The current study performed a secondary data analysis from a randomized control trial for BPD patients (all female; n = 87; age: m = 27; SD = 7.42). EWR was assessed via machine-scoring transcripts of Adult Attachment Interviews (AAI) for affective words using the VETA electronic scoring software for the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (LEAS). Generated scores were related to impairments in PO (Structured Interview for Personality Organization; STIPO), attachment organization (AAI) and mentalization (Reflective Functioning Scale), general symptom severity (Brief Symptom Inventory; BSI-53), self-harm and suicidal behavior. Independent effects of the investigated predictors were studied using Bayesian path analysis. Results: Corrected for education, findings in Bayesian path analysis suggest an independent negative association between EWR and suicide attempts (BE = -.32; 95 % CI [-.51, -.12]) and positive associations of deficits in PO with psychiatric symptoms (BE = .23; 95 % CI [.01, .44]) as well as suicide attempts (BE = .30; 95 % CI [.08, .49]). Discussion: The findings underscore the potential role of high EWR and PO as a protective factor for suicidal behavior in individuals with BPD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".