MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408019759 · doi:10.1521/pedi.2025.39.1.48

Suicidal and Self-Harming Behaviors in Patients With Borderline Personality Disorder With and Without Eating Disorders

2025· article· en· W4408019759 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Tennenhouse, Anthony C. Ruocco, Shelley McMain, Anne Sonley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Disorders · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBorderline personality disorderAnorexia nervosaBulimia nervosaEating disordersPsychologyPsychiatryComorbidityClinical psychologySuicide attemptPersonality disordersHarm avoidanceRisk factorPoison controlPersonalitySuicide preventionMedicineBig Five personality traitsInternal medicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) and eating disorders (EDs) frequently co-occur. The present study investigated whether treatment-seeking patients with BPD and a comorbid ED experienced increased risk of self-harm or suicide behaviors. In a sample of 350 patients with BPD, 61 (17.4%) had a comorbid ED: 25 (7.1%) had bulimia nervosa (BN), 15 (4.2%) had an eating disorder not otherwise specified (EDNOS), 13 (3.7%) had bingeeating disorder (BED), and 8 (2.2%) had anorexia nervosa (AN). Comorbid BED and AN were individually significantly associated with recurrent suicide attempt over the past year, while comorbid AN was associated with greater lethality of recent self-harm. These results suggest that ED diagnosis may constitute a risk factor for self-harm and suicide behaviors in patients 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207