EFICACIA DE LA TERAPIA CONDUCTUAL DIALÉCTICA PARA DISMINUIR IDEAS SUICIDAS Y AUTOLESIVAS EN PACIENTES CON TRASTORNO LÍMITE DE LA PERSONALIDAD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To systematize the evidence on the efficacy of dialectical behavioral therapy to decrease suicidal and autolesivas ideas in patients with borderline personality disorder.Material and methods: systematic observational and retrospective quantitative analysis, subject to critical choice, using the grade assessment system for the recognition of the degree of evidence, located in the following databases: Scielo, Researchgate, Sciencedirect, Epistemonikos, PubMed.Of the 10 articles systematically reviewed 10% (n = 1/10) are metaanalyses, 10% (n = 1/10) is a systematic review, 80% (n = 8/10) are randomized controlled trials.According to the results obtained from the systematic review carried out in the present study, derived from the countries of the United States (30%), the Netherlands (20%), Canada (20%), Norway (10%), Spain (10%) and Australia (10%).Results: In this way, from the evidence found, 90% (n = 9/10) indicate that dialectical behavioral therapy is effective in reducing suicidal and autolesivas ideas in patients with borderline personality disorder.10% (n = 1/10) point out that dialectical behavioral therapy is not effective in reducing suicidal and autolesivas ideas in patients with borderline personality disorder.Conclusion: Dialectical behavioral therapy is effective in reducing suicidal and autolesivas ideas in patients with borderline personality disorder
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".