MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001545496 · doi:10.1080/15374410802359650

Childhood Maltreatment and Conduct Disorder: Independent Predictors of Adolescent Substance Use Disorders in Youth with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

2008· article· en· W2001545496 on OpenAlexaff
Virginia A. De Sanctis, Joey W. Trampush, Seth C. Harty, David J. Marks, Jeffrey H. Newcorn, Carlin J. Miller, Jeffrey M. Halperin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsConduct disorderPsychologyAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderPsychiatrySubstance abuseClinical psychologySubstance useInjury preventionPoison controlMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are at heightened risk for maltreatment and later substance use disorders (SUDs). We investigated the relationship of childhood maltreatment and other risk factors to SUDs among adolescents diagnosed with ADHD in childhood. Eighty adolescents diagnosed with ADHD when they were 7 to 11 years old were screened for histories of childhood maltreatment, and SUD diagnoses were formulated in accordance with the 4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Lifetime history of problematic substance use was obtained for each parent at baseline. Childhood maltreatment predicted SUD outcome over and above that accounted for by childhood conduct disorder and problematic parental substance use, two potent predictors of adolescent SUDs.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations42
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Child & Adolescent PsychologySame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207