MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2933847636 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00173

Phenotypes in Gambling Disorder Using Sociodemographic and Clinical Clustering Analysis: An Unidentified New Subtype?

2019· article· en· W2933847636 on OpenAlexaff
Susana Jiménez‐Múrcia, Roser Granero, Fernando Fernández‐Aranda, Randy Stinchfield, Joël Tremblay, Trevor Steward, Gemma Mestre‐Bach, María Lozano‐Madrid, Teresa Mena-Moreno, Núria Mallorquí‐Bagué, José C. Perales, Juan F. Navas, Carles Soriano‐Mas, Neus Aymamí, Mónica Gómez‐Peña, Zaida Agüera, Amparo del Pino‐Gutiérrez, Virginia Martín‐Romera, José M. Menchón

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychopathologyDistressClinical psychologyPsychologyPsychological interventionCluster (spacecraft)PsychiatryPersonalityMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Gambling disorder (GD) is a heterogeneous disorder which has clinical manifestations that vary according to variables in each individual. Considering the importance of the application of specific therapeutic interventions, it is essential to obtain clinical classifications based on differentiated phenotypes for patients diagnosed with GD. Objectives. To identify gambling profiles in a large clinical sample of n=2,570 patients seeking treatment for GD. Methods. An agglomerative hierarchical clustering method defining a combination of the Schwarz Bayesian Information Criterion and log-likelihood was used, considering a large set of variables including sociodemographic, gambling, psychopathological, and personality measures as indicators. Results. Three-mutually-exclusive groups were obtained. Cluster 1 (n=908 participants, 35.5%), labeled as "high emotional distress", included the oldest patients with the longest illness duration, the highest GD severity, and the most severe levels of psychopathology. Cluster 2 (n=1,555, 60.5%), labeled as "mild emotional distress", included patients with the lowest levels of GD severity and the lowest levels of psychopathology. Cluster 3 (n=107, 4.2%), labeled as "moderate emotional distress", included the youngest patients with the shortest illness duration, the highest level of education and moderate levels of psychopathology. Conclusion: In this study, the general psychopathological state obtained the highest importance for clustering.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations29
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207