MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2615464853 · doi:10.1192/bjpo.bp.116.004317

Smoking, alcohol and drug use in youth and adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

2017· article· en· W2615464853 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sydney Osland, Lauren Hirsch, Tamara Pringsheim

Bibliographic record

VenueBJPsych Open · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsSouth Health CampusUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderAttention deficit disorderPsychiatryAlcohol use disorderPsychologyDrugAttention deficitClinical psychologyAlcoholMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests a relationship between attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and smoking, alcohol and illicit drug use, however most studies have focused on adolescents or young adults, or clinically ascertained samples. AIMS: To analyse population-based data on the relationship between ADHD and at-risk health behaviours in adolescents and adults. METHOD: Data were derived from a Statistics Canada population-based health survey. The association between the diagnosis of ADHD and smoking, alcohol use, and illicit drug use was examined. RESULTS: Individuals with ADHD started smoking at a younger age. They consumed more alcoholic drinks on drinking days, and women with ADHD were more likely to engage in binge drinking. Women over the age of 25 and men with ADHD were more likely to meet alcohol-dependence lifetime criteria. People with ADHD were at a greater risk of drug misuse and dependence. CONCLUSIONS: People with ADHD are more likely to partake in at-risk behaviours. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None. COPYRIGHT AND USAGE: © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2017. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Non-Commercial, No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) license.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJPsych OpenSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207