Gender differences in the prospective association between maternal alcohol consumption trajectories and young adult offspring’s problem gambling at 30 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although a large number of studies have examined the association between young adult's alcohol consumption and their problem gambling behaviours, none of these studies address the prospective association between mother's alcohol consumption and their young adult offspring's problem gambling behaviours. Using data from a 30 year prospective pre-birth cohort study in Brisbane, Australia (n = 1691), our study examines whether different maternal alcohol consumption trajectories predict offspring's risk of problem gambling behaviours and whether these associations differ by the young adults' gender. Offspring's level of problem gambling behaviours was assessed by the short version of the Canadian Problem Gambling Index, with about 10.6 % of young adults having some risk of problem gambling behaviours. Trajectories of maternal alcohol consumption were determined by group-based trajectory modelling over five time points. Our study found that mother's alcohol consumption pattern fits into three drinking trajectory groups, namely abstainers (17.2 %), a low-stable drinkers group (64.6 %) and a moderate-escalating drinkers group (18.2 %). Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that the moderate-escalating alcohol trajectory group is independently associated with a risk of their male young adult offspring having problem gambling behaviours at 30 years-even after adjustment for a range of potential confounding variables. Mothers who exhibit a persistent life course pattern of moderate-escalating drinking have male children who have a high risk of engaging in problem gambling behaviours. Offspring's alcohol consumption partially mediated the association between maternal drinking trajectories and young adult's risk of problem behaviours. High levels of maternal alcohol consumption may lead to male offspring antisocial behaviours. Programs intended to address problem gambling behaviours by young adults may need to focus on male group with a focus which specifically addresses family influences as these contribute to gambling behaviour.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".