MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W149775779 · doi:10.1177/070674371305800501

Behavioural Addictions as a Way to Classify Behaviours

2013· letter· en· W149775779 sur OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Donald W. Black

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2013
Typeletter
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueGambling Behavior and Treatments
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institute on Drug AbuseAustralian GovernmentAstraZeneca Canada
Mots-clésPsychologyAddictionClinical psychologyPsychiatryDevelopmental psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

AbbreviationsCB compulsive buyingCBT cognitive-behavioural therapyCSB compulsive sexual behaviourDSM Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersPG pathological gamblingThe concept of behavioural addiction as a way to classify behaviours that mirror the symptoms and consequences of classic alcohol and drug addictions has become of great interest to researchers and clinicians.' This is, in part, due to ongoing discussions regarding the creation of a category for behavioural addictions within the general class of substance use disorders in DSM-5, scheduled for release in May 2013.2 To date, PG is the only proposed member of the category, but it signals the recognition by the scientific community of what the National Institute on Drug Abuse considers relatively pure models of addiction because the presence of an exogenous substance does not contaminate their processes.3What defines a behavioural addiction? The simplest definition is that these are disorders whose overt symptoms are behaviourally expressed, and are viewed-at least initially-as pleasurable (for example, gambling, sex, shopping, and Internet use), and have attained an irresistible quality, such as the substance addictions. The boundaries of this emerging category are relatively fluid, appearing to expand or contract depending on an expert's own particular views. Some investigators choose to include impulse control disorders, currently listed in DSM-IV-TR (for example, PG, kleptomania, and pyromania) as members of the behavioural addiction category, but have also included disorders not currently recognized in the DSM system (for example, CB, Internet addiction, and CSB).3·4 In this edition of The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, both Dr Jon ? Grant and colleagues5 and Dr Robert F Leeman and Dr Marc ? Potenza6 write about the behavioural addictions, yet appear to disagree about its members. For example, Dr Grant and colleagues5 include pyromania and binge eating disorder, but Dr Leeman and Dr Potenza6 do not. Conversely, Dr Leeman and Dr Potenza6 include video game playing, but Dr Grant and colleagues5 do not. This perfectly illustrates how, even among those actively writing on the topic, there remains disagreement of its breadth. And while classification should rest on research evidence, the data we have are imperfect and subject to varying interpretation.While controversy remains about the optimal categorization of the behavioural addictions, research evidence supports the linkage between these disorders and substance addictions, strengthening the rationale to include both behavioural and substance addictions in the same general class. One of the benefits from recognizing this category is that improved classification could enable a more accurate description of endophenotype and biological markers that characterize these conditions. More precise classification could lead to specific treatments.Scientists and others writing about behavioural addictions have described common elements that link them with substance addiction. A growing body of phenomenological, genetic, and neurobiological evidence supports a relation among proposed behavioural addictions to the substance addictions.4·7 As outlined in this issue by Dr Grant and colleagues5 and Dr Leeman and Dr Potenza,6 they share common core clinical features. For example, both involve the performance of repetitive or compulsive behaviours, despite negative consequences; diminished control over the behaviours; craving prior to engaging in the behaviour, and experiencing a pleasurable response while engaged in the behaviour.4 Further, they appear to share features of tolerance, withdrawal, repeated attempts to cut back, and impairment in multiple life domains.4·8·9 Phenomenological data also suggest a relation between the behavioural and substance addictions. They often begin in the late teens or early twenties, and while several of the behavioural addictions, such as CB and kleptomania, are more common in women,10· other behaviourally expressed addictions appear to have a male preponderance (for example, PG and CSB), similar to that seen in substance addictions. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,020

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0070,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,004
Communication savante0,0020,003
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,074
Tête enseignante GPT0,336
Écart entre enseignants0,263 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations15
Publié2013
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Même sujetGambling Behavior and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→