Neurocognitive profiles of marginally housed persons with comorbid substance dependence, viral infection, and psychiatric illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Individuals living in single-room occupancy (SRO) hotels constitute a socially marginalized group with exposure to multiple factors with adverse effects on neurocognition, including substance use, viral infection, psychiatric illness, and brain injury. Consequently, marked heterogeneity in neurocognitive functioning is observed. This study aimed to identify and describe distinct neurocognitive profiles within a marginally housed sample. METHOD: Two hundred and forty-nine (N = 249) SRO hotel residents (mean age = 43.5 years) were recruited. A battery of tests assessed neurocognition across six domains: premorbid IQ, verbal memory, attention, inhibition, mental flexibility, and decision making. Clinical examinations collected information pertaining to substance use and psychiatric diagnoses, viral infection, psychiatric symptoms, risk behaviors, and everyday functioning. Cluster analysis was used to identify subgroups of individuals with similar neurocognitive profiles and was supplemented with a discriminant function analysis. Analyses of variance and chi-square tests were used to validate the derived clusters on key clinical and functional variables. RESULTS: A three-cluster solution was found to be optimal. Cluster 1 (n = 59) presented as overall higher functioning, whereas Cluster 3 (n = 87) exhibited overall lower functioning with a relative strength in decision-making skills. Cluster 2 (n = 103) was characterized by neurocognitive abilities that generally bisected the performance of the other groups, but with a relative weakness in decision-making skills. Discriminant function analysis indicated the six neurocognitive variables comprised two underlying dimensions that accounted for between-group variance. Clusters meaningfully differed on demographics, substance use, viral exposure, psychiatric symptoms, neurological soft signs, and risk behavior. CONCLUSION: Neurocognitive functioning provides the basis for identifying meaningful subgroups of marginally housed individuals, which can be reliably differentiated on key variables. This approach facilitates an understanding of the neurocognitive dysfunction and associated vulnerabilities of marginalized persons and ultimately may elucidate intervention targets.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".