MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reasons for using substances in adolescents with and without psychosis

2008· article· en· W2071270264 on OpenAlexaff
Alissa Pencer, Jean Addington

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly Intervention in Psychiatry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosisPsychiatryPsychologyClinical psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To increase our understanding of substance use among adolescents with psychosis by comparing their reasons for use with those of typically developing adolescents. METHODS: Participants were 35 outpatient adolescents, recently admitted for a first episode of psychosis to an early psychosis programme, and 35 typically developing adolescents. Measures used included the Personal Experience Screening Questionnaire and Reasons for Use Scale. RESULTS: Adolescents with psychosis used significantly more substances than adolescents without psychosis (P<0.01). Reasons for use in the two groups were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Although adolescents with psychosis report using substances for the same reasons as other adolescents, they may also use to self-medicate secondary morbidity associated with psychosis. These results have a number of implications for prevention and treatment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarly Intervention in PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207