Psychiatric Emergency Visits of Autistic Adults With or Without Documented Borderline Personality Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autism and borderline personality disorder (BPD) are each associated with increased psychiatric emergency department (PsyED) use, yet the service impact of coexisting autism-BPD remains unclear. We conducted a retrospective chart review of 1027 PsyED visits by 345 autistic adults (2018-2020) at an urban Canadian psychiatric hospital to compare service patterns between those with and without a BPD diagnosis. Sociodemographics, presenting reasons, restraint use, and disposition were analyzed using mixed-effects logistic regression. BPD was documented in 33.5% of visits and in 11.0% of unique autistic individuals, more often in birth-assigned females. Among all autistic individuals' PsyED visits, an autism diagnosis was documented in 60.2% of their text-based charts. Furthermore, autism was documented less frequently when BPD was recorded, suggesting possible diagnostic overshadowing. Suicidality as the primary reason for visit was associated with documented BPD (OR 4.366, 95% CI 2.659-7.169; p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in disposition (discharge vs. admission) or restraint use between birth-assigned sex, BPD status, or documentation of autism within the visit. Findings underscore the need for sex-sensitive, autism-aware assessments and trauma-informed care in PsyED settings, and caution against diagnostic overshadowing that influences clinical decision-making. Limitations include a single-site sample and lack of autism diagnosis timing data, precluding temporal inferences. Future work should test targeted interventions and clarify mechanisms of suicidality among autistic individuals with coexisting BPD. Integrated autism-BPD care pathways, with specialized outpatient supports, sensory-friendly adaptations, and structured referrals, may improve care and reduce PsyED visits.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".