Spend today, clean tomorrow: Predicting methamphetamine abstinence in a randomized controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial tested two behavioral economics mechanisms (substitutability and delay discounting) to explain outcomes using contingency management (CM) for methamphetamine dependence. Frequency and purchase type (hedonic/utilitarian and consumable/durable) of CM payments were also examined. METHODS: A total of 82 methamphetamine-dependent gay/bisexual men randomly assigned to conditions delivering CM received monetary vouchers in exchange for stimulant-negative urine samples in a 16-week trial requiring thrice weekly visits (Shoptaw et al., 2005). At any visit participants could redeem vouchers for goods. A time-lagged counting process Cox Proportional Hazards model for recurrent event survival analysis examined aspects of the frequency and type of these CM purchases. RESULTS: After controlling for severity of baseline methamphetamine use and accumulated CM wealth, as measured by cumulative successful earning days, participants who redeemed CM earnings at any visit ("spenders") were significantly more likely to produce stimulant-negative urine samples in the subsequent visit, compared with those who did not redeem ("savers") 1.011* [1.005, 1.017], Z = 3.43, p < .001. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the economic concept of substitutability of CM purchases and explain trial outcomes as a function of frequency of CM purchases rather than frequency or accumulated total CM earnings. Promotion of frequent purchases in incentive-based programs should facilitate substitution for the perceived value of methamphetamine and improve abstinence outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".