The effect of sample selection on the distinction between alcohol abuse and dependence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Steppan, M., Piontek, D., & Kraus, L. (2014). The effect of sample selection on the distinction between alcohol abuse and dependence. The International Journal Of Alcohol And Drug Research, 3(2), 159-168. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7895/ijadr.v3i2.100Aim: The effect of sample selection on the dimensionality of DSM-IV alcohol and dependence (AUD) criteria was tested applying different methods.Sample: Data from the 2006 German Epidemiological Survey of Substance Abuse (ESA) were used. A mixed-mode design was used (self-administered questionnaires and telephone interviews), and 7,912 individuals, aged 18 to 64 years, participated. The response rate was 45%. Alcohol abuse and dependence were assessed according to DSM-IV, based on the Munich Composite International Diagnostic Interview (M-CIDI). Inter-item correlations, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and Latent Class Analysis (LCA) were applied to the total sample (unrestricted sample, URS) and a subsample of individuals with at least one endorsed criterion (restricted sample, RS). Latent Class Factor Analysis (LCFA) was performed using the RS, including covariates (age, sex, education).Findings: The mean inter-item correlation was higher in the URS than in the RS. When individuals without criterion endorsement were excluded, factor analyses resulted in more dimensions. In the RS, LCA yielded an interaction between abuse, dependence and class membership. The LCFA identified two dimensions and five classes corresponding to abuse and dependence.Conclusions: Sample selection has a critical effect on dimensionality analyses. When individuals who do not endorse a single criterion are excluded, the bi-axial factor structure of the DSM-IV (abuse and dependence) can be supported. However, there is also evidence that a further diagnostic category should be included or that the threshold for dependence should be lowered.
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 | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".