Subjective Cognitive Complaints and Functional Disability in Patients with Borderline Personality Disorder and Their Nonaffected First-Degree Relatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the contributions of subjective cognitive complaints to functional disability in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) and their nonaffected relatives. METHOD: Patients with BPD (n = 26), their first-degree biological relatives (n = 17), and nonpsychiatric control subjects (n = 31) completed a self-report measure of cognitive difficulties and rated the severity of their functional disability on the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. RESULTS: After accounting for group differences in age and severity of depressive symptoms, patients and relatives endorsed more inattention and memory problems than control subjects. Whereas probands reported greater disability than relatives and control subjects across all functional domains, relatives described more difficulties than control subjects in managing multiple life activities, including domestic activities and occupational and academic functioning, and participating in society. For both probands and relatives, inattention and memory problems were linked primarily to difficulties with life activities, independent of depression and other comorbid psychiatric disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Problems with inattention and forgetfulness may lead to difficulties carrying out activities of daily living and occupational or academic problems in patients with BPD, as well as their nonaffected first-degree relatives.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".