Substance Use Disorders in Young Adults With and Without LD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on young people with and without learning disabilities (LD) and substance use disorders (SUD). Participants were assessed for LD at ages 12 and 19 and for SUD and psychiatric disorders at age 19. Participants with LD at ages 12 and 19 were more likely to develop an SUD or a psychiatric disorder compared to participants without consistent LD. Participants with LD at age 19 were more likely to have a concurrent SUD or psychiatric disorder compared to those without LD at age 19, while participants with LD at age 12 showed only a trend toward increased rates of SUD at age 19 when compared to participants without LD at age 12. Participants with and without LD did not differ in substance use, consumption levels, or onset history. In a multivariate model, adolescent LD was associated with a three-fold increased risk for SUD after behavioral problems and family structure had entered the model. Although these results provide some support for the notion that adolescents with LD are at increased risk for SUD, LD also appears to confer a general risk for adverse 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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".