Clinical and Personality Characteristics of Problem and Pathological Gamblers With and Without Symptoms of Adult ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study examined the differential clinical and personality characteristics of problem and pathological gamblers (PPGs) with and without clinically significant symptoms of adult attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD). Adults (N = 150, n = 75 women) with PPG were assessed by the SCID-IV, Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scales, Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire, Gambling Motivation Questionnaire, and the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. PPGs who reported symptoms of ADHD were more likely to be male, endorse psychiatric comorbidities (i.e., alcohol dependence, anxiety disorders, and antisocial personality disorder), report maladaptive personality traits (i.e., higher negative emotionality and lower positive emotionality), as well as higher impulsivity (attention impulsiveness, motor impulsiveness, and nonplanning impulsiveness). PPGs with symptoms of ADHD reported gambling for social, coping, and enhancement reasons. A multivariate binary logistic regression revealed that sex, higher scores on social reasons for gambling, and lack of premeditation were associated with an increased likelihood of reporting ADHD symptoms. The findings demonstrate important differences of PPGs with symptoms of ADHD and provide information for treatment consideration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".