The Relationship of Childhood Traumas and Alexithymia With Theory of Mind in Borderline Personality Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study examined the relationship between childhood trauma, alexithymia, and theory of mind (ToM) skills in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). STATEMENT OF STUDY TYPE: This study is a cross-sectional, randomized controlled survey/scale study. METHODS: Ninety participants were divided into three groups: BPD patients with high trauma levels (n=30), BPD patients with low trauma levels (n=30), and healthy controls (n=30). Assessments included the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ-28), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET), and a sociodemographic form. RESULTS: BPD patients had significantly higher childhood trauma exposure (p<.001), alexithymia (p<.001), and lower ToM skills (p<.001) than controls. No significant relationship was found between trauma scores and alexithymia (p=.937) or ToM skills (p=.461) within the BPD group. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that BPD itself may impair ToM skills independently of childhood trauma and alexithymia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".