MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411694769 · doi:10.1037/per0000709

Association of overgeneral autobiographical memory with personality impairment, pathological trait domains, and the borderline pattern specifier in a female psychiatric sample.

2025· article· en· W4411694769 on OpenAlexaff
Akram Ahangi, Anthony C. Ruocco, Michael Carnovale, Hossein Eskandari

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality Disorders Theory Research and Treatment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAutobiographical memoryAssociation (psychology)PathologicalTraitClinical psychologyBorderline personality disorderPersonalityBig Five personality traitsDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryPsychotherapistCognitionSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

, and Borderline Pattern Scale) and the Autobiographical Memory Test. In bivariate analyses, overgeneral autobiographical memories were associated with more severe self and interpersonal impairment, higher pathological personality traits (except for lower Anankastia), and more severe borderline pattern scores. Hierarchical regressions indicated that both self and interpersonal impairments, pathological traits (especially negative affectivity), and maladaptive regulatory strategies (a component of the borderline pattern) were uniquely and incrementally associated with overgeneral memories. Overall, these findings reveal the personality disorder components that underlie overgeneral autobiographical memories within a transdiagnostic female psychiatric sample. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonality Disorders Theory Research and TreatmentSame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207