Assessing the impact of transcranial direct current stimulation on impulsive behavior in borderline personality disorder : a feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is debilitating mental disorder that affects approximately 2 percent of individuals in community samples. Despite advances in psychiatry, a lack of clear guidance for diagnosis and treatment hinders the pursuit of appropriate treatments and a comprehensive understanding of this mental disorder. Transcranial direct current stimulation is a novel therapeutic tool that has shown positive outcome amongst different psychiatric illnesses. Concerning BPD, with the complexity of diagnosis and the lack of targeted-symptom treatments, data is limited and scarce. Although the available data is limited, with only five published articles, these studies have demonstrated positive outcomes in patients with BPD. However, discrepancies among trials have impeded further comparisons and clear recommendations. Therefore, the research team at Montreal Mental Health University Institute (IUSMM) launched a pilot study to examine the feasibility of tDCS on BPD. In doing so, we also aim to examine the effects of tDCS on some of BPD symptoms. Results revealed that acceptance of tDCS among BPD has a recruitment rate of 68 % and drop off rate of 23% with minimum temporary adverse effects. The effect of tDCS on BPD has shown increased impulsivity whereas improved mood post tDCS. Long term tDCS effects conjugated with psychotherapy revealed overall improvement in BPD psychopathology on BPDSI. To sum up, this study showed that tDCS is a feasible therapeutic tool for patients with BPD. The heightened impulsivity in the presence of alleviation (improvement) of other BPD psychopathologies urge us to initiate standardized protocols. This would help initiating accurate parameters and building a deeper understanding of some common symptoms of BPD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".