Identifying an accurate self‐reported screening tool for alcohol use disorder: evidence from a Swiss, male population‐based assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Short screenings for alcohol use disorder (AUD) are crucial for public health purposes, but current self-reported measures have several pitfalls and may be unreliable. The main aim of our study was to provide empirical evidence on the psychometric performance of self-reports currently used. Our research questions were: compared with a gold standard clinical interview, how accurate are (1) self-reported AUD, (2) self-reported alcohol use over time and (3) biomarkers of alcohol use among Swiss men? Finally, we aimed to identify an alternative screening tool. DESIGN: A single-center study with a cross-sectional design and a stratified sample selection. SETTING: Lausanne University Hospital (Switzerland) from October 2017 to June 2018. PARTICIPANTS: We selected participants from the French-speaking participants of the ongoing Cohort Study on Substance Use and Risk Factors (n = 233). The sample included young men aged on average 27.0 years. MEASUREMENTS: We used the Diagnostic Interview for Genetic Studies as the gold standard for DSM-5 AUD. The self-reported measures included 11 criteria for AUD, nine alcohol-related consequences, and previous 12 months' alcohol use. We also assessed biomarkers of chronic excessive drinking (ethyl glucuronide and phosphatidylethanol). FINDINGS: None of the self-reported measures/biomarkers taken alone displayed both sensitivity and specificity close to 100% with respect to the gold standard (e.g. self-reported AUD: sensitivity = 92.3%, specificity = 45.8%). The best model combined eight self-reported criteria of AUD and four alcohol-related consequences. Using a cut-off of three, this screening tool yielded acceptable sensitivity (83.3%) and specificity (78.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Neither self-reported alcohol use disorder nor heavy alcohol use appear to be adequate to screen for alcohol use disorder among young men from the Swiss population. The best screening alternative for alcohol use disorder among young Swiss men appears to be a combination of eight symptoms of alcohol use disorder and four alcohol-related consequences.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".