Journal of

Clinical Medicine

Article
The Role of Cognitive Deficits in Borderline Personality
Disorder with Early Traumas: A Mediation Analysis
Paola Bozzatello *, Cecilia Blua, Claudio Brasso , Paola Rocca and Silvio Bellino

Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Via Cherasco 15, 10126 Turin, Italy
* Correspondence: paola.bozzatello@unito.it; Tel.: +39-011-663-4848; Fax: +39-011-673-473

Abstract: (1) Background: although studies of cognitive functions are still limited in borderline
personality disorder (BPD), the initial evidence suggested that BPD patients have deficits of executive
functions and social cognition. In addition, patients who report physical and psychic traumatic
experiences in childhood and adolescence show considerable neurocognitive impairment and severe
BPD symptoms. The present study has a twofold aim: (1) to evaluate the differences in neurocognitive
performances between BPD patients and healthy controls and (2) to verify in the BPD patients group
whether neurocognitive deficits have the role of mediating the effect of early traumas on BPD
psychopathology. (2) Methods: 69 subjects were enrolled: 38 outpatients with a diagnosis of BPD
(DSM-5) and 31 healthy controls. BPD patients were tested with the Borderline Personality Disorder
Severity Index (BPDSI), and the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire–Short Form (CTQ-SF). All subjects
were evaluated with the Iowa Gambling task (IGT), the Berg card sorting test (BCST), the Tower
of London task (ToL), and the Reading-the-mind-in-the-eyes-test (RMET). Statistical analysis was
performed with the analysis of variance to compare the cognitive performances between BPD patients
and controls. A mediation analysis was conducted with the Sobel Test in the BPD patients group. The
significance level was p ≤ 0.05. (3) Results: significant differences between the two groups were found
for several parameters of all the cognitive tests examined: BCST, IGT, ToL, and RMET. Mediation
analysis with the Sobel test demonstrated that the percentage of correct answers in the BCST (BCSTc)
and the RMET score significantly mediated the relation between the CTQ total score and BPDSI total
score. (4) Conclusions: BPD patients showed an impairment of the following executive functions: set
Citation: Bozzatello, P.; Blua, C.;
shifting, decision making, planning and problem solving, and social cognition abilities, in comparison
Brasso, C.; Rocca, P.; Bellino, S. The
Role of Cognitive Deficits in
with controls. Our results suggested that the effect of early trauma on BPD psychopathology was
Borderline Personality Disorder with mediated by a deficit in two cognitive domains: cognitive flexibility and social cognition.
Early Traumas: A Mediation
Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 787. Keywords: executive functions; personality disorders; social cognition; BPD psychopathology
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12030787

Academic Editor: Jean-Arthur

Micoulaud Franchi
1. Introduction
Received: 7 December 2022 Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe mental disorder characterized by
Revised: 13 January 2023
a pervasive pattern of instability in affective regulation, interpersonal relationships, self-
Accepted: 17 January 2023
image, and impulse control which leads to emotional dysregulation, impulsive aggression,
Published: 18 January 2023
repetitive self-injuries, and suicidal tendencies [1,2].
In the last decade, a growing number of investigations and systematic reviews have
been focused on potential risk factors that contribute to BPD development. Environmental,
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
temperamental, psychopathological, and neurobiological factors associated with BPD onset
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. were identified [3–8]. Current developmental models of BPD indicate that the effects of
This article is an open access article predisposing factors express through risk processes that unfold across adolescence and
distributed under the terms and implicate interactions between a genetic vulnerability and a harsh, invalidating family
conditions of the Creative Commons environment [9,10].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// So, early traumatic experiences in terms of precocious emotional, sexual, and/or
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ physical abuse and neglect, bully victimization, abnormalities in familial behaviors and
4.0/).

J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 787. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12030787 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jcm

J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 787 2 of 12

parent–child relationships, and severe maternal psychopathology have a remarkable role

in inducing the onset of borderline psychopathology [7,11–17].
Although the effects of early traumas on neurocognitive functions are still debated
and have yet to be defined, some authors suggested that patients with a higher degree of
physical and psychic traumatic experiences in childhood and adolescence show more severe
neurocognitive deficits [18]. A hypothesis could be that traumas may influence cognitive
capacity as a result of experience-mediated damage in brain structure and function [19].
Studies that have investigated neurocognitive alterations in BDP patients identified
patterns of deficits that may be considered rather specific for this disorder and suggested
that the severity of neuropsychological abnormalities is associated with a negative clinical
outcome [20–22], poor treatment adherence [23,24], a higher use of psychiatric services, and
higher rates of hospitalization [18]. Among cognitive deficits, the impairment of executive
functions and social cognition is considered a prominent feature of BPD patients [9,20,25].
Executive functions include cognitive activities such as making decisions, planning actions,
and establishing objectives and motor outputs adapted to external demands [26–28]. In
BPD patients, significant deficits were found in working memory processes, activities of
planning and problem solving, set shifting, and decision making [21,24,29–31]. Patients
with BPD showed a tendency to make risky choices and are unable to improve their
performance and learn from negative feedback in comparison with healthy controls [32].
Another cognitive domain that requires assessment in these patients is social cognition.
Social cognition is the set of skills that enables the construction of mental representations of
existing relationships between the self and others and the use of these representations to
carry out purposeful and context-adapted behaviors. Decoding the mental states of other
individuals is related to the ability to decipher signals—for example, facial expressions—
that express thoughts and affective states [33–35]. Social cognition is one of the impaired
cognitive domains in BPD. It is related to the mentalization deficit characteristic of these
patients and is clinically expressed with a severe instability of interpersonal relationships.
The way in which traumatic events and neurocognitive deficits contribute to BPD
psychopathology and their mutual interactions are still understudied. This study has a
twofold objective: (1) to investigate the differences in neurocognitive performances between
a group of BPD patients and a group of healthy controls; (2) to verify in a sample of BPD
patients whether neurocognitive deficits have the role of mediating the effect of traumas on
BPD psychopathology.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants
The present study included 69 subjects: 38 outpatients with a diagnosis of BPD
according to the criteria of the DSM-5 [1] and 31 healthy controls. All participants were
aged between 18 and 60 years. Both groups included males and females. The patients were
enrolled from outpatients attending the Center for Personality Disorders of the Department
of Neuroscience, University of Turin, Italy. Healthy subjects were recruited among the
general population and were matched for gender and age. The diagnosis of BPD was
made by an expert clinician (P.B.). All subjects were tested with the Structured Clinical
Interview for DSM-5 Clinical Version (SCID-5-CV) and Personality Disorders Version
(SCID-5-PD) [36,37] to confirm the diagnosis and exclude other psychiatric disorders.
The study was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki of 1995 (as
revised in Edinburgh in 2000) and approved by the Local Ethical Committee (Approval ID
0094867-b). The patients and controls tested in this study were recruited from the sample
of a previous trial registered in The Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry
(ACTRN12619000078156). For all patients, written informed consent was obtained prior
to their participation. The study followed the rules on the handling of biomedical data
(Council of the EU: Data Protection, 2015).
The exclusion criteria were: (1) a lifetime diagnosis of delirium, dementia, amnestic
disorder, or other cognitive disorders; schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders; bipolar
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 787 3 of 12

disorder; ADHD; post-traumatic stress disorder; other personality disorders; (2) a con-
comitant diagnosis of a major depressive episode; and (3) the occurrence of substance
use disorder in the twelve months before evaluation. The patients included in the study
received treatment as usual (TAU) in accordance with the guidelines for the treatment of
BPD [38–41,41–44]. The TAU included mood stabilizers (valproic acid, lamotrigine, and
topiramate) and second/third-generation antipsychotics (olanzapine, aripiprazole, and
quetiapine).

2.2. Assessment
Sociodemographic and clinical variables were registered with a semi-structured inter-
view. Anamnestic reports were confirmed, when possible, by family members or caregivers.
Data were entered in a password-protected database.
BPD patients were tested with the Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index
(BPDSI) [45] and the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire–Short Form (CTQ-SF) [46]. All
subjects were evaluated with a neurocognitive battery including the Iowa Gambling
task (IGT) [47], the Berg card sorting test (BCST) [48], and the Tower of London task
(ToL) [49]. In order to assess social cognition, we used the Reading-the-mind-in-the-eyes
test (RMET) [50,51].
The BPDSI-IV is a semi-structured interview based on DSM-IV BPD criteria and yields
a quantitative index of the current severity and frequency of specific BPD manifestations.
The interview consists of 70 items, arranged in nine subscales representing the nine DSM-IV
BPD-criteria. For each item, the frequency of the last three months is rated on an 11-point
scale, running from 0 (never) to 10 (daily). Identity disturbance items are an exception,
since they concern a stable sense of self over a time period rather than a quantifiable
symptom. Therefore, identity disturbance items are rated on a scale from 0 (absent) to 4
(dominant, clear, and well defined not knowing who he/she is); the mean score is then
multiplied by 2.5. The total score is the sum of the nine averaged criteria scores (range
0–90). The index, but also the separate criteria, possess adequate reliability as well as
discriminant, concurrent, and construct validity both in the original version [45] and in the
Italian translation [52].
In order to evaluate the presence and severity of childhood trauma, the Childhood
Trauma Questionnaire–Short Form (CTQ-SF) was administered. The Childhood Trauma
Questionnaire-Short Form (CTQ–SF) is the most widely used retrospective measure for the
assessment of early traumatic experiences. It is an easier and more rapid questionnaire
developed from the original 70-item Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) [53]. It is
made of 28 items. Twenty-five of them were retained from the original CTQ and measured
experiences of five different types of childhood traumas: emotional abuse, physical abuse,
sexual abuse, emotional neglect, and physical neglect. Three additional items provide
information on patients’ tendencies toward minimization and negation [54]. For each item,
the participant assigns a frequency from never true (1) to very often true (5). Then, the
expressed frequencies are converted by the clinician into numerical values of 1 to 5 (or
5 to 1 for inverse-R scoring items). These scores are summed for each of the five clinical
scales. The total scores for each scale range from 5 to 25 and provide a quantitative index of
trauma severity. The minimization/neglect scale is an exception because it consists of three
items (items 10, 16, and 22), and one point is awarded for each item that has been valued
5 (most often true). The total score on the minimization/negation scale is in the range of
0–3. CTQ total scores have also been calculated, since they have been used in previous
studies [55–58]. The sum of subscale scores results in a total score ranging from 25 to 128.
Neurocognitive tests were derived from the PEBL test battery, a freely downloadable
and modifiable software [59].
1. The Iowa Gambling task (IGT) evaluates hot cognitive functions [60], particularly
decision making [61,62]. The Iowa Gambling task (IGT) is a psychological task thought to
simulate real-life decision making. Four virtual decks of cards are presented on a computer
screen. Participants are instructed that the cards from each deck will either reward or
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 787 4 of 12

penalize them. The goal of the game is to win as much money as possible. The decks
differ from each other in terms of the balance of reward versus penalty cards. Thus, some
decks are more risky (decks A and B), while other decks are less risky (decks C and D),
as some decks will tend to cause losses more often than others. The relative sums of the
disadvantageous and advantageous decks are subtracted from each other to define the
magnitude of deck preference in terms of gain: (deck C + deck D) − (deck A + deck B).
This index corresponds to IGT-net. Higher values signify the better performance on the
task [63].
In addition, the different choice of decks is evaluated according to the frequency of
punishments: decks B and D receive punishments less frequently, while A and C receive
them more assiduously. This evaluation is performed by means of the following calculation:
(deck B + deck D) − (deck A + deck C). Higher values indicate a propensity towards less
frequent losses [63].
2. The Berg card sorting test (BCST): The PEBL version of the Wisconsin card sorting
test is used to evaluate cognitive flexibility and set-shifting ability [61]. It is a measure of
cool executive functions. The outcomes considered for the neurocognitive assessment of
patients and controls are: correct answers (expressed in %); incorrect answers (expressed in
%); perseverative errors (expressed in %); non-perseverative errors or set loss (expressed
in %); a failure to maintain the set (loss of the correct rule of order during the execu-
tion) [64]. It should be specified that, within non-perseverative errors, a subdivision should
be made: effective errors should be distinguished from casual errors. Effective errors are
non-perseverative and unavoidable errors that are needed to acquire an efficient use of
information in order to perform a correct set shifting; in the case of healthy subjects, they
occur immediately after the rule change.
3. The Tower of London task (ToL) is used to evaluate any deficit in terms of planning
(the organization of a sequence of actions oriented toward a goal), as well as to offer a
measure of the ability to perform correct problem solving (acquisition of heuristic strategies
to build as many towers in the shortest time possible) [61,65]. The outcomes considered in
the Tower of London test are the average number of moves it takes the test subject to solve
the problem and the time, expressed in ms, needed to solve it [21,22].
4. The Reading-the-mind-in-the-eyes test (RMET) has been widely used to assess the
theory of mind or the ability to recognize the thoughts and feelings of others. This test
includes 36 photographs of male and female eyes depicting emotional states. For each
photograph, participants are asked to choose the emotional state that best describes the
eye expression, choosing between one of four possible emotions. The sum is given by the
number of correct answers (maximum 36).

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences,
SPSS, version 28 for Windows (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).
We performed a t-test and chi-square test for demographical variables to exclude
significant differences between BPD patients and healthy controls. One-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was calculated in order to compare the cognitive performances achieved
in the four tests of this study (IGT, BCST, ToL, and RMET).
In the group of BPD patients, the Sobel Test (Z) was calculated to investigate the effect
of mediation of cognitive deficits between early traumatic experience (CTQ-SF score) and
BPD symptoms (BPDSI total score). Mediation occurs when the following conditions are
met: (1) the independent variable (IV) significantly predicts the dependent variable (DV);
(2) the IV significantly predicts the potential mediator (M); (3) the M predicts the DV; (4) the
effect of IV on DV is reduced when the M is included in the model. To determine whether
this attenuation was significant and to determine whether M fully or partially mediated the
relationship between the IV and the DV, the Sobel test for indirect effects was employed. In
this study, numerical values are presented as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) unless
otherwise specified. The significance level was p ≤ 0.05.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 787 5 of 12

3. Results
Sixty-nine subjects were included in the study: 38 outpatients with a diagnosis of BPD
(26 women and 12 men) and 31 healthy controls (21 women and 10 men).
The mean age was 34.40 ± 13.54 in the BPD patients and 33.45 ± 11.69 in the controls.
The mean age of education was 13.37 ± 2.33 years in the patients group, while it was
15.39 ± 2.04 years in the controls group.
A comparison of sociodemographic data between the two groups was performed
with a t test for continuous variables and a Chi-square test for categorical variables. No
significant differences were found. The results are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1. Comparison (with a t test and χ2 test) of the baseline values of demographic variables
between the BPD and healthy control groups a .

Variable BPD Patients Healthy Controls t/χ2 p

Age, y 34.40 ± 13.55 33.45 ± 11.69 0.31 0.76
Men/women, n 12/26 10/21 0.01 0.95
Level of education, y 13.37 ± 2.33 15.39 ± 2.04 −3.78 0.33
a Values are the mean ± SD unless otherwise noted. Abbreviations: BPD = borderline personality disorder.

To compare the cognitive performances of patients with BPD and healthy controls, we
used one-way ANOVA. A significant difference between the two groups was found for
BCSTc (p < 0.001; F = 41.575), BCSTe (p < 0.001; F = 41.387), BCSTep (p = 0.035; F = 4.642),
CD-AB (p < 0.001; F = 30.194), IGTnet (p < 0.001; F = 17.894), ToL Steps (p = 0.003; F = 9.318),
ToL Time (p < 0.001; F = 12.898), and RMET (p < 0.001; F = 68.398). We reported the effect
size of the ANOVA analysis (η2 ). The results are reported in Table 2.

Table 2. Comparison (with ANOVA) of the baseline values of measures of cognitive domains between
the BPD and healthy control groups a .

Measure BPD Patients Healthy Controls F p η2

RMET 21.58 ± 2.40 25.84 ± 1.73 68.398 <0.001 0.51
BCSTc 57.29 ± 17.10 79.56 ± 9.70 41.575 <0.001 0.38
BCSTe 43.01 ± 17.45 20.44 ± 9.70 41.387 <0.001 0.38
BCSTep 17.65 ± 10.93 12.52 ± 8.30 4.642 0.035 0.07
CD-AB −9.55 ± 23.27 23.48 ± 26.65 30.194 <0.001 0.31
IGTnet −680.66 ± 729.12 101.61 ± 805.16 17.894 <0.001 0.21
ToLSteps 7.33 ± 1.13 6.60 ± 0.76 9.318 0.003 0.12
ToLTime (ms) 31,615.06 ± 15,405.61 29,423.11 ± 8807.56 12.898 <0.001 0.16
a Values are the mean ± SD unless otherwise noted. Abbreviations: BCSTc = Berg card sorting test correct
answers; BCSTe = Berg card sorting test incorrect answers; BCSTep = Berg card sorting test perseverative errors;
IGTnet = Iowa Gambling task net scores; RMET = Reading-the-mind-in-the-eyes test; ToLSTEPS = Tower of
London Steps; ToLTIME = Tower of London Time; ms = milliseconds.

For each assessment instrument of cognitive performance, we made a mediational

hypothesis testing as a mediator between early traumas and BPD symptoms, the parameter
that presented the highest mean difference between groups in the one-way ANOVA. We
report the results of the two mediational hypotheses for which the Sobel test indicated a
significant effect of mediation (BCST and RMET). The Sobel test for IGT and ToL did not
reach statistical significance. In our analysis, the IV was the CTQ tot score, the hypothetical
M was a measure of cognitive deficit, and the DV was the severity of BPD symptoms. The
results are presented in Tables 3 and 4 and in Figures 1 and 2.
In the first analysis, we tested the effect of the CTQ total score on the BPDSI total
score, with BCSTc as a potential mediator (Table 3, Figure 1). The direct effect (c) of
the CTQ total score on the BPDSI total score was significant, showing that more severe
early traumatic experiences predicted a higher severity of psychopathology (β = 0.563,
SE = 0.124, p = 0.001). Moreover, the CTQ total score significantly predicted BCSTc (a),
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 787 6 of 12

with more severe traumas predicting a lower percentage of correct answers in the test of
cognitive flexibility (β = −0.546, SE = 0.164, p = 0.02). In addition, BCSTc predicted the
BPDSI total score (b), with a lower number of correct answers associated with a higher
severity of symptoms (β = −0.264, SE = 0.121, p = 0.03).

Table 3. Mediational model (M = BCSTc).

β SE p
REGRESSION (a)
CTQ tot → BCSTc −0.546 0.164 0.02
REGRESSION (b)
BCSTc → BPDSI tot −0.264 0.121 0.03
REGRESSION (c)
CTQ tot → BPDSI tot 0.563 0.124 <0.001
REGRESSION (c1)
CTQ tot → BPDSI tot 0.420 0.135 0.004
Sobel Test
Z = 1.82 p = 0.03
Abbreviations: M = mediator; BCSTc = Berg card sorting test correct; BPDSI tot = Borderline Personality Disorder
Severity Index Total Score; CTQ tot = Childhood Trauma Questionnaire total score.

Table 4. Mediational model (M = RMET).

β SE p
REGRESSION (a)
CTQ tot → RMET 0.563 0.124 <0.001
REGRESSION (b)
RMET → BPDSI tot −2.917 0.869 0.002
REGRESSION (c)
CTQ tot → BPDSI tot 0.563 0.124 <0.001
REGRESSION (c1)
CTQ tot → BPDSI tot 0.288 0.137 0.04
Sobel Test
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Z = 2.68 p = 0.007
7 of 13
Abbreviations: M = mediator; BPDSI tot = Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index Total Score; CTQ
tot = Childhood Trauma Questionnaire total score; RMET = Reading-the-mind-in-the-eyes test.

Figure 1. Mediational model (M = BCSTc).

Figure 1. Mediational model (M = BCSTc).
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 787 7 of 12
Figure 1. Mediational model (M = BCSTc).

Figure 2. Mediational model (M = RMET).

Figure 2. Mediational model (M = RMET).
The direct effect of the CTQ total score remained significant after the inclusion of
Table 3. Mediational model (M = BCSTc).
BCSTc as a mediating variable, while it decreased somewhat in magnitude (β from 0.563
to 0.420). β SE p
The Sobel
REGRESSION (a) tests for mediation demonstrated that BCSTc significantly mediated the
relation between
CTQ tot → BCSTc the CTQ total score
−0.546 and BPDSI total score
0.164 (z = 1.82, p = 0.03).
0.02
In the second mediation analysis, we tested RMET as a potential mediator of the effect
REGRESSION (b)
of the CTQ total score on the BPDSI total score (Table 4, Figure 2). The CTQ total score
BCSTc → BPDSI tot −0.264 0.121 0.03
significantly predicted RMET (a), with more severe early traumas associated with a lower
REGRESSION (c)
ability to recognize the thoughts and feelings of others (β = −0.094, SE = 0.021, p = 0.001).
CTQ tot → BPDSI
Furthermore, tot score significantly
the RMET 0.563 0.124
predicted the <0.001
BPDSI total score (b), with a lower
REGRESSION (c1)
performance in social cognition associated with more severe BPD symptoms (β = −2.917,
CTQ tot → pBPDSI
SE = 0.869, tot
= 0.002). 0.420 0.135 0.004
SobelinTest
Also this mediation analysis, the direct effect of the CTQ total score on the BPDSI
total score remained significant after the inclusion ofZRMET= 1.82 as a mediatingpvariable,
= 0.03 while
it decreased somewhat in magnitude (β from 0.563 to 0.288).
The Sobel tests for mediation demonstrated that RMET significantly mediated the
relation between the CTQ total score and BPDSI total score (z = 2.68, p = 0.007).

4. Discussion
The present study aimed to assess the differences in the functioning of specific cogni-
tive domains between a group of BPD patients and a group of healthy controls. Moreover,
in the patients group, we set out to evaluate, by a mediation analysis, whether the effect
of early traumatic experiences on the psychopathology of the disorder might be partly
mediated by deficits in cognitive functions.
As for the first point, our results showed a significant difference in all cognitive
domains between the patients and controls. In particular, BPD patients had an impairment
of the following executive functions: set shifting (BCST), decision making (IGT), and
planning and problem solving (ToL). Although the interest in cognitive deficits in borderline
pathology is fairly recent and available studies are still limited, these findings are in line
with those of previous investigations [22,24,32,65–71]. Another interesting result of this
study, in accordance with previous investigations, was that the patients group presented
significantly impaired social cognition abilities (RMET) in comparison with the controls. In
recent years, clinical research paid increasing attention to the social cognitive dysfunctions
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 787 8 of 12

of patients with BPD, and a growing number of studies have indicated that these patients
show significant deficits in the domain of social cognition [72–74].
Regarding the second objective of the present study, namely, the hypothesis that certain
cognitive deficits act as mediators of the effect of early trauma on borderline psychopathol-
ogy, it is not possible to compare our findings with the data of preceding studies. To the
best of our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate, by mediation analysis, the complex
interactions between early trauma, cognitive impairments, and BPD symptoms. Fairly
consistent data are available in the literature on the relationship between early traumatic
experiences and the severity of BPD psychopathology [7,8,18,75,76], while less studied and
more controversial are the relationships between trauma and neurocognitive deficits [18,77]
and between the latter and BPD symptoms [2,18].
Our results suggested that the effect of early trauma on BPD psychopathology was
mediated by deficits in two parameters of cognitive domains: the cognitive flexibility or set
shifting (measured with the BCST percentage of correct answers - BCSTc) and the social
cognition (measured with the RMET score).
These results were reported for the first time and need to be replicated, but in our
opinion, they deserve to be carefully considered. In the first case, it can be hypothesized that
the multiple traumatic events that occurred at an early age affected cognitive development
by making the subject less flexible and thus less capable of adapting to the environmental
context and of choosing appropriate strategies in response to different challenges. Deficits in
cognitive flexibility and set shifting could be partly responsible for characteristic symptoms
of DBP such as the difficulty in controlling anger and impulsivity and the failure to maintain
stable relationships across changing situations.
The second result obtained in the mediation analysis is also of considerable inter-
est, as the impairment of social cognition is a key factor in patients with a diagnosis of
BPD [2,78,79]. In fact, theories of the development of BPD point out that traumatic events in
childhood and adolescence can interfere with the normal development of social cognition
and mentalization capacity [79]. A possible interpretation of our finding may be that early
and repeated experiences of emotional and physical abuse or neglect cause or provoke a
condition of cognitive isolation in which subjects are not able to acknowledge others’ beliefs
and affective states. Deficits in empathic abilities and the interpersonal communication
of cognitive and affective states can generate or exacerbate BPD symptoms, especially in
terms of unstable relationships and uncontrolled reactions without an evaluation of their
consequences.
The fact that no significant effects of mediation were found for other cognitive evalua-
tion instruments—in particular, the IGT (to assess the function of decision making) and
the ToL (to measure the abilities of planning and problem solving)—is rather difficult to
interpret and requires further investigations.
The results of the present study, which underline the role of cognitive domains in BPD
pathology, if confirmed, may have useful therapeutic implications. Some authors concluded
that it is not enough to obtain symptomatic improvement in order to produce significant
effects on overall functioning [80]. Therefore, cognitive deficits should also become a
specific target of treatment. For example, cognitive remediation or psychotherapeutic
interventions, such as interpersonal psychotherapy or mentalization-based therapy, could
produce positive changes in cognitive flexibility, social cognition, and empathy. In addition,
preliminary evidence highlighted the opportunity to restore cognitive deficits in BPD
patients with noninvasive brain stimulation interventions [81].
Our study suffers from some limitations. The first limit is due to the rather small
sample size. A more adequate sample size could be achieved in a multicenter study.
A second limitation is related to the predominance of the female gender in the sample.
The unequal gender distribution can be a bias, since some authors believe that deficits
of cognitive functions are different in males and females. The third limit concerns the
mean age of patients, which is rather high considering the age at the onset of personality
disorders. It implies that patients are evaluated after a prolonged duration of illness. The
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 787 9 of 12

fourth limit is the lack of specific mediating analyses, taking in consideration the nine
BPDSI subscales rather than the total score. Another limitation is due to the fact that the
effects on cognitive functions in the patients group can be partly induced by the treatment
received by these subjects, although the medications used in our sample are recent drugs
with a relatively low impact on cognition.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.B., C.B. (Cecilia Blua) and S.B.; methodology, P.B. and
C.B. (Cecilia Blua); software, P.B., C.B. (Cecilia Blua) and S.B.; writing—original draft preparation,
P.B. and C.B. (Cecilia Blua); writing—review and editing, P.B. and S.B.; visualization, P.B., C.B.
(Cecilia Blua), C.B. (Claudio Brasso), P.R. and S.B.; supervision, P.B., S.B., C.B. (Claudio Brasso) and
P.R.; project administration, P.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to Comitato Etico
Interaziendale A.O.U. Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino—A.O. Ordine Mauriziano—A.S.L.
Città di Torino, ID code: 0094867-b.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Our local ethics committee does not allow us to make our sets of data
available.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed.; (DSM-5); American Psychiatric
Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
2. Kaplan, B.; Gulec, M.Y.; Gica, S.; Gulec, H. The association between neurocognitive functioning and clinical features of borderline
personality disorder. Braz. J. Psychiatry 2020, 42, 503–509. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Kaess, M.; Brunner, R.; Chanen, A. Borderline personality disorder in adolescence. Pediatrics 2014, 134, 782–793. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
4. Miller, A.L.; Muehlenkamp, J.J.; Jacobson, C.M. Fact or fiction: Diagnosing borderline personality disorder in adolescents. Clin.
Psychol. Rev. 2008, 28, 969–981. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Stepp, S.D.; Lazarus, S.A.; Byrd, A.L. A Systematic Review of Risk Factors Prospectively Associated with Borderline Personality
Disorder: Taking Stock and Moving Forward. Personal. Disord. Theory Res. Treat. 2016, 7, 316–323. [CrossRef]
6. Stepp, S.D.; Lazarus, S.A. Identifying a borderline personality disorder prodrome: Implications for community screening. Personal.
Ment. Health 2017, 11, 195–205. [CrossRef]
7. Bozzatello, P.; Rocca, P.; Bellino, S. Trauma and psychopathology associated with early onset BPD: An empirical contribution. J.
Psychiatr. Res. 2020, 131, 54–59. [CrossRef]
8. Bozzatello, P.; Garbarini, C.; Rocca, P.; Bellino, S. Borderline Personality Disorder: Risk Factors and Early Detection. Diagnostics
2021, 11, 2142. [CrossRef]
9. Beauchaine, T.P.; Klein, D.N.; Crowell, S.E.; Derbidge, C.; Gatzke-Kopp, L. Multifinality in the development of personality
disorders: A Biology × Sex × Environment interaction model of antisocial and borderline traits. Dev. Psychopathol. 2009, 21,
735–770. [CrossRef]
10. Crowell, S.E.; Beauchaine, T.P.; Linehan, M.M. A Biosocial Developmental Model of Borderline Personality: Elaborating and
Extending Linehan’s Theory. Psychol. Bull. 2009, 135, 495–510. [CrossRef]
11. Antila, H.; Arola, R.; Hakko, H.; Riala, K.; Riipinen, P.; Kantojärvi, L. Bullying involvement in relation to personality disorders: A
prospective follow-up of 508 inpatient adolescents. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2017, 26, 779–789. [CrossRef]
12. Barnow, S.; Aldinger, M.; Arens, E.A.; Ulrich, I.; Spitzer, C.; Grabe, H.J.; Stopsack, M. Maternal transmission of borderline
personality disorder symptoms in the community-based Greifswald Family Study. J. Personal. Disord. 2013, 27, 806–819.
[CrossRef]
13. Bornovalova, M.A.; Huibregtse, B.M.; Hicks, B.M.; Keyes, M.; McGue, M.; Iacono, W. Tests of a direct effect of childhood abuse
on adult borderline personality disorder traits: A longitudinal discordant twin design. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 2013, 122, 180–194.
[CrossRef]
14. Haltigan, J.D.; Vaillancourt, T. Identifying trajectories of borderline personality features in adolescence: Antecedent and interactive
risk factors. Can. J. Psychiatry 2016, 61, 166–175. [CrossRef]
15. Lyons-Ruth, K.; Brumariu, L.E.; Bureau, J.F.; Hennighausen, K.; Holmes, B. Role confusion and disorientation in young adult-
parent interaction among individuals with borderline symptomatology. J. Personal. Disord. 2015, 29, 641–662. [CrossRef]
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 787 10 of 12

16. Mahan, R.M.; Kors, S.B.; Simmons, M.L.; Macfie, J. Maternal psychological control, maternal borderline personality disorder, and
adolescent borderline features. Personal. Disord. Theory Res. Treat. 2018, 9, 297–304. [CrossRef]
17. Stepp, S.D.; Whalen, D.J.; Scott, L.N.; Zalewski, M.; Loeber, R.; Hipwell, A.E. Reciprocal effects of parenting and borderline
personality disorder symptoms in adolescent girls. Dev. Psychopathol. 2014, 26, 361–378. [CrossRef]
18. Thomsen, M.S.; Ruocco, A.C.; Thomsen, M.S.; Mathiesen, B.B.; Simonsen, E. Neurocognitive Deficits in Borderline Personality
Disorder: Associations with Childhood Trauma and Dimensions of Personality Psychopathology. J. Pers. Disord. 2017, 31, 503–521.
[CrossRef]
19. Heim, C.; Nemeroff, C.B. The role of childhood trauma in the neurobiology of mood and anxiety disorders: Preclinical and
clinical studies. Biol. Psychiatry 2001, 49, 1023–1039. [CrossRef]
20. Judd, P.H. Neurocognitive impairment as a moderator in the development of borderline personality disorder. Dev. Psychopathol.
2005, 17, 1173–1196. [CrossRef]
21. LeGris, J.; Van Reekum, R. The neuropsychological correlates of borderline personality disorder and suicidal behaviour. Can. J.
Psychiatry 2006, 51, 131–142. [CrossRef]
22. Ruocco, A.C. The neuropsychology of borderline personality disorder: A meta-analysis and review. Psychiatry Res. 2005, 137,
191–202. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Fertuck, E.A.; Keilp, J.; Song, I.; Morris, M.C.; Wilson, S.T.; Brodsky, B.S.; Stanley, B. Higher executive control and visual memory
performance predict treatment completion in borderline personality disorder. Psychother. Psychosom. 2011, 81, 38–43. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
24. Mcclure, G.; Hawes, D.J.; Dadds, M.R. Borderline personality disorder and neuropsychological measures of executive function: A
systematic review. Personal. Ment. Health 2016, 10, 43–57. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Fertuck, E.A.; Lenzenweger, M.F.; Clarkin, J.F. The association between attentional and executive controls in the expression of
borderline personality disorder features: A preliminary study. Psychopathology 2005, 38, 75–81. [CrossRef]
26. Diamond, A. Executive functions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2013, 64, 135–168. [CrossRef]
27. Goldstein, S.; Naglieri, J.A.; Princiotta, D.; Otero, T.M. Introduction: A history of executive functioning as a theoretical and clinical
construct. In Handbook of Executive Functioning; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 3–12, ISBN 978-1-4614-8106-5.
28. Reynolds, C.R.; Horton, A.M.N. Assessment with the test of verbal conceptualization and fluency (TVCF). In Handbook of Executive
Functioning; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 265–282, ISBN 978-1-4614-8106-5.
29. Gvirts, H.Z.; Harari, H.; Braw, Y.; Shefet, D.; Shamay-Tsoory, S.G.; Levkovitz, Y. Executive functioning among patients with
borderline personality disorder (BPD) and their relatives. J. Affect. Disord. 2012, 143, 261–264. [CrossRef]
30. Vita, A.; Deste, G.; Barlati, S.; Poli, R.; Cacciani, P.; De Peri, L.; Sacchetti, E. Feasibility and effectiveness of cognitive remediation
in the treatment of borderline personality disorder. Neuropsychol. Rehabil. 2018, 28, 416–428. [CrossRef]
31. Dell’Osso, B.; Berlin, H.A.; Serati, M.; Altamura, A.C. Neuropsychobiological aspects, comorbidity patterns and dimensional
models in borderline personality disorder. Neuropsychobiology 2010, 61, 169–179. [CrossRef]
32. Schuermann, B.; Kathmann, N.; Stiglmayr, C.; Renneberg, B.; Endrass, T. Impaired decision making and feedback evaluation in
borderline personality disorder. Psychol. Med. 2011, 41, 1917–1927. [CrossRef]
33. Fonagy, P.; Leigh, T.; Steele, M.; Steele, H.; Kennedy, R.; Mattoon, G.; Target, M.; Gerber, A. The relation of attachment status,
psychiatric classification, and response to psychotherapy. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1996, 64, 22–31. [CrossRef]
34. de Haas, M.A.; Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J.; van Ijzendoorn, M.H. The Adult Attachment Interview and questionnaires for
attachment style, temperament, and memories of parental behavior. J. Genet. Psychol. 1994, 155, 471–486. [CrossRef]
35. Adolph, R.; Tranel, D.; Damasio, A. Dissociable neural systems for recognizing emotions. Brain Cogn. 2003, 52, 61–69. [CrossRef]
36. First, M.B. Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM (SCID). In The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.:
Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 1–6, ISBN 978-1-118-62539-2.
37. First, M.B.; Williams, J.B.W.; Karg, R.S.; Spitzer, R.L. User’s Guide for the SCID-5-CV Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-
5®Disorders: Clinical Version; American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.: Arlington, VA, USA, 2016; pp. xii, 158, ISBN 978-1-58562-524-6.
38. American Psychiatric Association. Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with borderline personality disorder. Am. J. Psychiatry
2001, 158, 1–52.
39. American Psychiatric Association (Ed.) Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Borderline Personality Disorder; American
Psychiatric Association: Arlington, VA, USA, 2006; Volume 1, ISBN 978-0-89042-336-3.
40. National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (Ed.) Borderline Personality Disorder: Treatment and Management; National Clinical
Practice Guideline; The British Psychological Society: Leicester, UK, 2009; ISBN 978-1-85433-477-0.
41. National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC Clinical Practice Guideline—Borderline Personality Disorder NHMRC.
Available online: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/clinical-practice-guideline-borderline-personality-
disorder (accessed on 1 August 2022).
42. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Borderline Personality Disorder: Recognition and Management Guidance.
Available online: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg78 (accessed on 1 August 2022).
43. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Personality Disorders: Borderline and Antisocial. Available online: https:
//www.nice.org.uk/guidance/QS88 (accessed on 1 August 2022).
44. Stoffers, J.M.; Lieb, K. Pharmacotherapy for Borderline Personality Disorder—Current Evidence and Recent Trends. Curr.
Psychiatry Rep. 2014, 17, 534. [CrossRef]
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 787 11 of 12

45. Arntz, A.; Dreessen, L.; Schouten, E.; Weertman, A. Beliefs in personality disorders: A test with the personality disorder belief
questionnaire. Behav. Res. Ther. 2004, 42, 1215–1225. [CrossRef]
46. Bernstein, D.P.; Stein, J.A.; Newcomb, M.D.; Walker, E.; Pogge, D.; Ahluvalia, T.; Stokes, J.; Handelsman, L.; Medrano, M.;
Desmond, D.; et al. Development and validation of a brief screening version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Child.
Abuse Negl. 2003, 27, 169–190. [CrossRef]
47. Bechara, A.; Damasio, A.R.; Damasio, H.; Anderson, S.W. Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human
prefrontal cortex. Cognition 1994, 50, 7–15. [CrossRef]
48. Grant, D.A.; Berg, E. A behavioral analysis of degree of reinforcement and ease of shifting to new responses in a Weigl-type
card-sorting problem. J. Exp. Psychol. 1948, 38, 404–411. [CrossRef]
49. Shallice, T. Specific impairments of planning. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London. Ser. B. Biol. Sci. 1982, 298, 199–209. [CrossRef]
50. Baron-Cohen, S.; Wheelwright, S.; Jolliffe, T. Is there a “language of the eyes”? Evidence from normal adults, and adults with autism
or Asperger syndrome. Vis. Cogn. 1997, 4, 311–331. [CrossRef]
51. Baron-Cohen, S.; Wheelwright, S.; Hill, J.; Raste, Y.; Plumb, I. The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test revised version: A study
with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. J. Child. Psychol. Psychiatry 2001, 42, 241–251.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. di Giacomo, E.; Arntz, A.; Fotiadou, M.; Aguglia, E.; Barone, L.; Bellino, S.; Carpiniello, B.; Colmegna, F.; Lazzari, M.; Lorettu, L.;
et al. The Italian Version of the Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index IV: Psychometric Properties, Clinical Usefulness,
and Possible Diagnostic Implications. J. Pers. Disord. 2018, 32, 207–219. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Bernstein, D.P.; Fink, L.; Handelsman, L.; Foote, J. Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ); [Database record] APA PsycTests;
American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1994. [CrossRef]
54. Kim, D.; Park, S.-C.; Yang, H.; Oh, D.H. Reliability and Validity of the Korean Version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-
Short Form for Psychiatric Outpatients. Psychiatry Investig. 2011, 8, 305–311. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Frodl, T. Do (epi)genetics impact the brain in functional neurologic disorders? In Handbook of Clinical Neurology; Elsevier, B.V.:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; Volume 139, pp. 157–165.
56. Bevilacqua, L.; Carli, V.; Sarchiapone, M.; George, D.K.; Goldman, D.; Roy, A.; Enoch, M.A. Interaction between FKBP5 and
childhood trauma and risk of aggressive behavior. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 2012, 69, 62–70. [CrossRef]
57. Jiang, W.-J.; Zhong, B.-L.; Liu, L.-Z.; Zhou, Y.-J.; Hu, X.-H.; Li, Y. Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Childhood
Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form for inpatients with schizophrenia. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0208779. [CrossRef]
58. Dovran, A.; Winje, D.; Øverland, S.N.; Breivik, K.; Arefjord, K.; Dalsbø, A.S.; Jentoft, M.B.; Hansen, A.L.; Waage, L. Development
and Aging Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire in high-risk groups. Scand.
J. Psychol. 2013, 54, 286–291. [CrossRef]
59. Mueller, S.T.; Piper, B.J. The Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL) and PEBL Test Battery. J. Neurosci. Methods 2014,
222, 250–259. [CrossRef]
60. Chan, R.C.K.; Shum, D.; Toulopoulou, T.; Chen, E.Y.H. Assessment of executive functions: Review of instruments and identifica-
tion of critical issues. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 2008, 23, 201–216. [CrossRef]
61. Akbari, V.; Rahmatinejad, P.; Mohammadi, S.D. Comparing Neurocognitive Profile of Patients with Borderline Personality and
Bipolar-II Disorders. Iran. J. Psychiatry 2019, 14, 113–119. [CrossRef]
62. Linhartová, P.; Látalová, A.; Barteček, R.; Širůček, J.; Theiner, P.; Ejova, A.; Hlavatá, P.; Kóša, B.; Jeřábková, B.; Bareš, M.; et al.
Impulsivity in patients with borderline personality disorder: A comprehensive profile compared with healthy people and patients
with ADHD. Psychol. Med. 2020, 50, 1829–1838. [CrossRef]
63. LeGris, J.; Links, P.S.; van Reekum, R.; Tannock, R.; Toplak, M. Executive function and suicidal risk in women with Borderline
Personality Disorder. Psychiatry Res. 2012, 196, 101–108. [CrossRef]
64. Stuss, D.T.; Levine, B.; Alexander, M.P.; Hong, J.; Palumbo, C.; Hamer, L.; Murphy, K.J.; Izukawa, D. Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
performance in patients with focal frontal and posterior brain damage: Effects of lesion location and test structure on separable
cognitive processes. Neuropsychologia 2000, 38, 388–402. [CrossRef]
65. Gvirts, H.Z.; Braw, Y.; Harari, H.; Lozin, M.; Bloch, Y.; Fefer, K.; Levkovitz, Y. Executive dysfunction in bipolar disorder and
borderline personality disorder. Eur. Psychiatry 2015, 30, 959–964. [CrossRef]
66. Arza, R.; Díaz-Marsa, M.; López-Micó, C.; de Fernández, N.; López-Ibor, J.; Carrasco, J. Alteraciones neuropsicológicas en el
trastorno límite de la personalidad: Estrategias de detección. Actas Españolas Psiquiatr. 2009, 37, 185–190.
67. Bazanis, E.; Rogers, R.D.; Dowson, J.H.; Taylor, P.; Meux, C.; Staley, C.; Nevinson-Andrews, D.; Taylor, C.; Robbins, T.W.; Sahakian,
B.J. Neurocognitive deficits in decision-making and planning of patients with DSM-III-R borderline personality disorder. Psychol.
Med. 2002, 32, 1395–1405. [CrossRef]
68. Garcia-Villamisar, D.; Dattilo, J.; Garcia-Martinez, M. Executive functioning in people with personality disorders. Curr. Opin.
Psychiatry 2017, 30, 36–44. [CrossRef]
69. Haaland, V.Ø.; Esperaas, L.; Landrø, N.I. Selective deficit in executive functioning among patients with borderline personality
disorder. Psychol. Med. 2009, 39, 1733–1743. [CrossRef]
70. Xi, C.; Liu, Z.; Zhong, M.; Yang, H.; Peng, W.; Yi, J. Impaired set-shifting in drug-naïve patients with borderline personality
disorder: An event-related potentials study—ClinicalKey. J. Affect. Disord. 2021, 280, 64–71. [CrossRef]
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 787 12 of 12

71. Lawrence, K.A.; Allen, J.S.; Chanen, A.M. Impulsivity in borderline personality disorder: Reward-based decision-making and its
relationship to emotional distress. J. Pers. Disord. 2010, 24, 786–799. [CrossRef]
72. Daros, A.R.; Uliaszek, A.A.; Ruocco, A.C. Perceptual biases in facial emotion recognition in borderline personality disorder.
Personal. Disord. Theory Res. Treat. 2014, 5, 79–87. [CrossRef]
73. Herpertz, S.C.; Bertsch, K. The social-cognitive basis of personality disorders. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 2014, 27, 73–77. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
74. Roepke, S.; Vater, A.; Preißler, S.; Heekeren, H.; Dziobek, I. Social cognition in borderline personality disorder. Front. Neurosci.
2013, 6, 195. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
75. Bozzatello, P.; Bellino, S.; Bosia, M.; Rocca, P. Early Detection and Outcome in Borderline Personality Disorder. Front. Psychiatry
2019, 10, 710. [CrossRef]
76. Sasson, N.J.; Pinkham, A.E. Exploring the Role of Social Cognition in the Relationship Between Trauma and Psychopathology.
Biol. Psychiatry Cogn. Neurosci. Neuroimaging 2018, 3, 822–823. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
77. Kavanaugh, B.C.; Dupont-Frechette, J.A.; Jerskey, B.A.; Holler, K.A. Neurocognitive deficits in children and adolescents following
maltreatment: Neurodevelopmental consequences and neuropsychological implications of traumatic stress. Appl. Neuropsychol
Child. 2017, 6, 64–78. [CrossRef]
78. Anupama, V.; Bhola, P.; Thirthalli, J.; Mehta, U.M. Pattern of social cognition deficits in individuals with borderline personality
disorder. Asian J. Psychiatr. 2018, 33, 105–112. [CrossRef]
79. Bohus, M.; Stoffers-Winterling, J.; Sharp, C.; Krause-Utz, A.; Schmahl, C.; Lieb, K. Borderline personality disorder. Lancet 2021,
398, 1528–1540. [CrossRef]
80. Álvarez-Tomás, I.; Ruiz, J.; Guilera, G.; Bados, A. Long-term clinical and functional course of borderline personality disorder: A
meta-analysis of prospective studies. Eur. Psychiatry 2019, 56, 75–83. [CrossRef]
81. Lisoni, J.; Barlati, S.; Deste, G.; Ceraso, A.; Nibbio, G.; Baldacci, G.; Vita, A. Efficacy and tolerability of Brain Stimulation
interventions in Borderline Personality Disorder: State of the art and future perspectives—A systematic review. Prog. Neuro-
Psychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 2022, 116, 110537. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.