EPA-0464 – Tracking and treatment of online problem and pathologic poker gamblers: cross-sectional assessment followed by an internet-based randomized controlled trial of brief-interventions protocol presentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Internet-based randomized controlled-trial is an emergent design that could be particularly pertinent in problem and pathologic online gamblers. Aim The proposed design of this first online randomized controlled trial among moderate risk problem and pathologic online poker gamblers with a naturalistic recruitment on the online poker operator website Winamax. Objectives The first part of the study is a cross sectional phase, aiming to identify a screening tool of moderate risk problem and pathologic gambling among routine registered-by- operator data by comparison to the clinical diagnosis tool ‘Canadian Pathological Gambling Index’ (CPGI). The second part is an interventional phase, aiming to assess efficacy of 3 internet-based brief interventions on problem gamblers at 6 and 12 weeks compared. Methods The cross sectional phase will be proposed systematically to all online problem poker gamblers. The interventional phase will be proposed to all online problem poker gamblers with a CPGI score ≥ 5. Subjects will be randomized in 4 groups: 1. Control= waiting list; 2. email with personal normative information ; 3. self-help program to be downloaded (based on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Motivational Interview) ; 4. Same program provided by weekly email contacts with a psychologist. The first judgment criterion will be the decrease in CPGI at six weeks. Conclusion The perspectives of this study are to enhance problem and pathologic online gamblers profiling by operators by proposing a surrogate endpoint of problem and pathologic gambling and to propose an easy, acceptable, minimal-efficient online behavioral intervention to problem and pathologic gamblers.
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 | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.005 |
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".