Relationship between craving and personality in treatment-seeking women with substance-related disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individual differences may impact susceptibility to addiction. The impact of personality features on drug craving, however, has not been studied, particularly in women. METHODS: Ninety-five treatment-seeking women with substance dependence, abstinent for at least 5 and no more than 21 days, were investigated regarding the correlation between personality factors and craving. Personality was assessed using the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI), the NEO Personality Inventory Revised (NEO-PI-R), and the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale version 11 (BIS-11). Cravings were assessed through the Pennsylvania Craving Scale (PCS), and the Craving Questionnaire (CQ). Anxiety and depressive symptomatology were also recorded. RESULTS: Craving scores were positively correlated with depression and negatively correlated with number of days abstinent from substance use. Also, craving scores were positively associated with the novelty-seeking factor from the TCI and the total score on the BIS-11, and negatively associated with the conscientiousness and agreeableness facets of the NEO-PI-R. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that personality features, particularly impulsiveness, can be important predictors of craving in women, which has important implications for treatment planning.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".