Unique roles of childhood poverty and adversity in the development of lifetime co-occurring disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender differences in stressors that affect the development of co-occurring psychiatric and substance use disorders (COD) have been given inadequate attention, despite evidence that women and men commonly develop different types of both psychiatric disorder and substance use disorders and have different experiences of illness and treatment. This paper assesses early life antecedents of COD, specifically childhood poverty and childhood adversity, and how they vary by gender. Weighted multinomial logistic regressions were conducted with the National Epidemiologic Survey of Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (NESARC-III) (n = 33,676) nationally representative data from 2014-2015 to assess whether antecedents of COD are conditional on gender. Results demonstrate that overall nearly one in five people (17.5%) have lifetime COD, and disorder prevalence differs for males and females (COD: 18.0% vs 16.4%; psychiatric disorder: 8.5% vs. 20.9%; substance use disorder: 5.6% vs. 13.0%, respectively). Males with childhood poverty are more likely than males without to have COD but poverty does not affect COD risk for females. For both males and females, increases in number of adversities are associated with increased probability of COD, however, the magnitude of this association is stronger for males. To understand COD risk, conditional relationships between early poverty, early adversity and gender must be considered. With this knowledge, prevention and treatment efforts have the potential to be targeted more effectively.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".