At-risk gambling in patients with severe mental illness: Prevalence and associated features
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
Background and aims The primary objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence of at-risk gambling in a large, unselected sample of outpatients attending two community mental health centers, to estimate rates according to the main diagnosis, and to evaluate risk factors for gambling. Methods All patients attending the centers were evaluated with the Canadian Problem Gambling Index and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Diagnoses were checked with the treating psychiatrists and after a chart review of the university hospital discharge diagnoses. Results The rate of at-risk gambling in 900 patients was 5.3%. In those who gambled over the last year, 10.1% were at-risk gamblers. The rates in the main diagnostic groups were: 4.7% schizophrenia and related disorders, 4.9% bipolar disorder, 5.6% unipolar depression, and 6.6% cluster B personality disorder. In 52.1% of the cases, at-risk gambling preceded the onset of a major psychiatric disorder. In a linear regression analysis, a family history of gambling disorder, psychiatric comorbidities, drug abuse/dependence, and tobacco smoking were significantly associated with at-risk gambling. Discussion and conclusion The results of this study evidenced a higher rate of at-risk gambling compared to community estimates and call for a careful screening for gambling in the general psychiatric population.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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