MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1951306298 · doi:10.1080/10720162.2012.735515

Sexual Addiction and Substance Addiction: Comparing Sexual Addiction Treatment Outcomes Among Clients With and Without Comorbid Substance Use Disorders

2012· article· en· W1951306298 on OpenAlexaff
Leah I. Hartman, Victoria Ho, Simone Arbour, Janice Hambley, Penny Lawson

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Addiction & Compulsivity The Journal of Treatment and Prevention · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsBell (Canada)York University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual addictionAddictionPsychiatrySubstance usePsychologyClinical psychologySubstance dependenceSubstance abuseQuality of life (healthcare)Psychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study sought to compare treatment outcomes for individuals with a single diagnosis of sexual addiction (SA) to those with comorbid sexual and substance addiction (SA-SUD), and to explore whether these two disorders can be successfully treated concurrently. Baseline and 6 month follow-up data were collected from adults receiving inpatient residential treatment for SA (n = 21) or for SA-SUD (n = 36) examining sexual impulse control, alcohol and drug use, and quality of life. Both SA and SA-SUD clients experienced significant improvements in self-reported sexual compulsivity and quality of life; however, on average, SA clients had significantly higher levels of compulsive sexual behavior than SA-SUD clients. The findings suggest that the two disorders can be successfully treated concurrently. Implications of these findings are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual Addiction & Compulsivity The Journal of Treatment and PreventionSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207