Cross-sectional examination of the association of co-occurring alcohol misuse and traumatic brain injury on mental health and conduct problems in adolescents in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This study describes the impact of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and hazardous drinking on mental health and behavioural issues among Ontario adolescents. In particular, we assessed the incremental co-occurrence of hazardous drinking with a history of TBI, in comparison to experiencing just one of these conditions. Methods A cross-sectional subsample of 3130 Ontario adolescents attending grades 9–12, and aged 10–21 were surveyed in 2013 as a part of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health's Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey. Recent (past year) and former (lifetime and excluding the last year) TBI were defined as trauma to the head that resulted in loss of consciousness for at least 5 min or overnight hospitalisation. Current hazardous drinking was derived using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Results An estimated 11.8% of Ontario adolescents (95% CI 10.1% to 13.8%) reported a history of former TBI and were not hazardous drinkers; 4.0% (95% CI 2.9% to 5.5%) reported recent TBI and were not hazardous drinkers; 13.7% (95% CI 12.3% to 15.3%) were hazardous drinkers who never had a TBI; 4.1% (95% CI 2.9% to 5.8%) had former TBI with co-occurring hazardous drinking; and 2.2% (95% CI 1.6% to 3.0%) had recent TBI with co-occurring hazardous drinking. Most odds increased significantly and were two to three times higher for reporting compromised mental health, violent and non-violent conduct behaviours, and reported victimisation for classifying as a hazardous drinker at the time of testing with co-occurring either former or recent TBI compared to classifying as not having either of these conditions. Adolescents classified as hazardous drinkers with former TBI had numerous and higher ORs for conduct behaviours than those with recent TBI. Conclusions Results emphasise the strong interplay between TBI and hazardous drinking and point to the need for integrating prevention efforts to reduce these conditions and their co-occurrence among adolescents.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".