The Role of Hopelessness in Patients With Borderline Personality Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to evaluate specific characteristics associated with hopelessness, potentially correlated with coping strategies, sensory profile, and alexithymia in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred twenty-four (N=224) inpatients completed a clinical interview with administration of the Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS), the Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (AASP), the Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced Inventory (COPE), and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS). RESULTS: Hopelessness was significantly associated with female gender, more hospitalizations, current suicidal ideation, number of suicide attempts, current and lifetime medication abuse, and alcohol misuse. Furthermore, patients with BHS ≥ 9 had higher scores in low registration, sensory sensitivity and sensation avoiding in AASP, higher rate of alexithymia, and the use of maladaptive coping strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Hopelessness in BPD was associated with higher severity of illness, alternative process sensory input from the environment, reduced ability to cope with stressful events, and alexithymia. Therefore, a routine assessment of hopelessness in patients with BPD could lead to better and more specific therapeutic strategies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".