A pilot and feasibility study of Sage: A couple therapy for borderline personality disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is characterized by emotion dysregulation and relationship dysfunction. However, the majority of BPD treatments provide individually-focused treatment and do not target relationship functioning or include significant others. The current paper presents the primary and secondary outcomes from an uncontrolled trial of Sage, a manualized conjoint treatment for people with BPD and their intimate partners that targets BPD, relationship conflict, and partner mental health simultaneously. Method: Sixteen couples wherein one member has BPD and elevated suicidal ideation/chronic and frequent suicidal/self-injurious behavior were enrolled in the 12-session Sage protocol. Measures of BPD severity (including suicidal ideation, suicidal/self-injurious behaviors, and emotion dysregulation) and relationship outcomes were collected at pre-, mid-, and post-intervention, and three-month follow-up. Results: Self-reported BPD severity, suicidal ideation, and emotion dysregulation and interview-rated frequency of suicidal and self-injurious behaviors improved from baseline to follow-up. No changes were observed in relationship outcomes or informant-reported BPD severity and suicidal ideation. Conclusions: These findings suggest that Sage may aid in improving BPD pathology with moderate to large effect sizes. The lack of improvements in relationship outcomes may be due to the relatively high relationship functioning observed in couples at baseline, but more testing is needed.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04737252..
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".