Clinical Course and Personality in Reactive, Compared with Nonreactive, Delusional Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Reactive delusional disorder (DD) (with a precipitating factor) has been postulated to differ clinically from nonreactive DD and to show a better prognosis. Our study tests this hypothesis in a sample of patients with persistent DD (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision) or DD (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) followed during a period of more than 10 years. METHOD: As part of a long-term study on DD, 19 patients with DD and a stressful life event preceding the onset of the disorder were compared with 24 DD patients without such a life event. Diagnoses, social and biographical data, life events, and outcome were assessed by a semistructured interview and validated rating scales. Personality features were assessed by the NEO Five-Factor Inventory and by the Inventory of Clinical Personality Accentuations. RESULTS: Patients with reactive DD tended to be somewhat younger but showed otherwise little differences to patients with nonreactive DD. In particular, there were no differences in the course of the disorder. However, patients with reactive DD were significantly more often in a stable relationship and showed higher values on neuroticism and more pronounced dependent and borderline personality accentuations in dimensional personality measures. CONCLUSIONS: Reactive DD was not found to have a better prognosis than nonreactive DD. However, the results suggest an increased vulnerability for interpersonal conflicts in these patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".