Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of borderline personality disorder: a systematic review of best practice in anticipation of MAiD MD-SUMC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Countries permitting assisted dying for mental disorder as the sole underlying condition (MD-SUMC) find that individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) constitute a significant proportion of people requesting MAiD. In anticipation of forthcoming changes to Canadian MAiD legislation, clinical practise guidelines will be important in the decision-making process for eligibility to ensure that evidence-based treatments have been exhausted in making determinations of irremediability. AIMS: This is a systematic review of international, English-language treatment guidelines for BPD with two primary objectives: First, to identify areas of consensus and disagreement in best practise for the treatment of this disorder and second, to assess whether the guidelines offered insight into defining irremediable BPD and/or its management. METHODS: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic review of five databases and identified five clinical practise guidelines in the English language. Two authors independently performed data extraction on the core components of these treatment guidelines, which was synthesized into a narrative review. FINDINGS: Several conclusions may be drawn about the state of the evidence on BPD treatment. First, psychological therapies are broadly considered the preferred treatment modality for BPD but there is no consensus regarding whether any one intervention is preferable. Second, all guidelines suggest pharmacotherapy may have a role in the management of BPD, but the nature and extent of this is disputed. Third, there is no guidance alluding to, defining, or commenting on the management of irremediable BPD. Finally, there are no Canadian treatment guidelines for BPD. The implications of these findings for MAiD MD-SUMC are discussed.
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 | 0.282 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".