1931 – Attention Problems In Childhood And Substance Use 18 Years Later
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) has been linked to substance use disorders later in life. However, the unique contribution of ADHD is not clarified yet. Insufficient research in this area has considered first substance use, associated behavioral problems and female gender in longitudinal and community settings. Aims To study the association between childhood attention problems and substance use 18 years later. Method Using a French community sample of 1103 youths followed from 1991 to 2009, we tested associations between childhood attention problems (dimensional constructs) and substance use between ages 22 and 35, adjusting for potential childhood and family confounders. Results Individuals with high levels of childhood attention problems presented higher rates of substance use (regular tobacco smoking, alcohol abuse/dependence, cannabis problematic use, cocaine lifetime use). However, when taking into account other childhood behavioral problems, early substance use, academic difficulties and family adversity, childhood attention problems were only related to regular tobacco smoking and cocaine lifetime use. Conclusions This longitudinal community-based study shows that, except for tobacco and cocaine, the association between childhood attention problems and substance use is confounded by a range of early risk factors.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".