ArticleBMC psychiatry2026
Machine learning approaches to distinguish bipolar disorder from borderline personality disorder: a scoping review.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBorderline personality disorder (BPD) and bipolar disorder (BD) are debilitating psychiatric illnesses with significant rates of misdiagnosis. This scoping review explores the potential of machine learning (ML) approaches in distinguishing individuals diagnosed with BD from those with BPD, reporting the performance metrics of various predictive models.
methodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to March 2025 for studies involving the terms "bipolar disorder," "borderline personality disorder," "machine learning", and "artificial intelligence." Peer-reviewed research was included without restriction on publication date or language. Of 60 studies screened, 5 met the inclusion criteria. The review followed the PCC framework, JBI Reviewer's Manual, and PRISMA guidelines.
resultsThis study identified five studies that applied predictive models to data from 591 participants to differentiate individuals with BD and BPD. Classification accuracy ranged from 61.7% to 89%. While ML models outperformed DSM-based categorical approaches overall, accuracy differed markedly by diagnosis: correctly 87.8% for BD compared with 57.7% for BPD, illustrating the persistent diagnostic challenges for BPD. Models were more accurate in distinguishing patients with both BD and BPD from those with BD alone (79.6%) than from those with BPD alone (61.7%). ML techniques based on brain imaging features achieved 80% accuracy, while mood ratings collected via smartphone enabled the differentiation of BD, BPD, and controls with 75% accuracy.
conclusionCurrently, few predictive models have been developed to distinguish between BD and BPD. The findings of this review suggest that ML algorithms show moderate to good performance in clinical differentiation of BD and BPD. Further research is warranted to refine and validate predictive tools that aim to improve diagnostic precision in BD and BPD clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.