Inhibitory control deficits in borderline personality disorder: a meta-analysis of stop-signal and Go/No-Go tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Impulsivity, a multifaceted construct, is a core feature of borderline personality disorder (BPD), associated with functional impairment and suicide mortality. Findings on motor inhibitory control, a key dimension of impulsivity, in BPD are heterogeneous. METHODS: This PRISMA-guided meta-analysis examines motor inhibitory control in adults with BPD compared to healthy controls (HCs), using Stop-Signal Task and Go/No-Go Task data. Thirty-seven datasets from 35 articles were included. RESULTS: Results from random-effect models suggest that BPD patients exhibit significantly higher motor inhibitory control deficits than HCs, with a small to moderate effect size. Contrary to common assumptions, a mixed-model effect found that emotional factors did not moderate inhibitory control in BPD. Finally, the meta-analysis revealed that self-reported impulsivity measures did not correlate with task performance, suggesting that subjective and objective measures of impulsivity may assess different facets of the construct. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the need for greater standardization of task-based measures of impulsivity, as methodological heterogeneity and quality currently limit replicability across studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".