How Substance Users With ADHD Perceive the Relationship Between Substance Use and Emotional Functioning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although substance use (SU) is elevated in ADHD and both are associated with disrupted emotional functioning, little is known about how emotions and SU interact in ADHD. We used a mixed qualitative-quantitative approach to explore this relationship. METHOD: Narrative comments were coded for 67 persistent (50 ADHD, 17 local normative comparison group [LNCG]) and 25 desistent (20 ADHD, 5 LNCG) substance users from the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD (MTA) adult follow-up (21.7-26.7 years-old). RESULTS: SU persisters perceived SU positively affects emotional states and positive emotional effects outweigh negative effects. No ADHD group effects emerged. Qualitative analysis identified perceptions that cannabis enhanced positive mood for ADHD and LNCG SU persisters, and improved negative mood and ADHD for ADHD SU persisters. CONCLUSION: Perceptions about SU broadly and mood do not differentiate ADHD and non-ADHD SU persisters. However, perceptions that cannabis is therapeutic may inform ADHD-related risk for cannabis use.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it