Substance use in youth at‐risk for serious mental illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this paper is to describe the substance use of participants who are at-risk for serious mental illness (SMI). METHOD: The Canadian Psychiatric Risk and Outcome study (PROCAN) is a two-site study of 243 youth and young adults aged 13 to 25 years, categorized into four groups: healthy controls (n = 42), stage 0 (asymptomatic individuals with risk of SMI typically family high risk; n = 41), stage 1a (distress disorder or mild symptoms of anxiety or depression; n = 53) and stage 1b (attenuated syndromes, including bipolar disorder or psychosis; n = 107). Substance use measures were administered at baseline, 6- and 12-months. RESULTS: At baseline, the most commonly reported substance used in the past month was alcohol (43.6%), followed by cannabis (14.4%) and tobacco (12.4%). There were no significant group differences in use. 42.4% of all participants reported ever using cannabis in their lifetime, whereas 21.4% reported currently using cannabis. There were no group differences in ever having used cannabis. Regarding lifetime substance abuse disorders, cannabis use disorder (5.7%) and alcohol use disorder (4.5%) were the most common and more often reported in stage 1b participants relative to other groups. Furthermore, alcohol, cannabis and tobacco use remained relatively consistent at 6- and 12-month follow-ups when compared to baseline use. CONCLUSION: Alcohol was the most commonly used substance followed by cannabis and tobacco. Although substance use did not differ between those at different stages of risk, overall prevention strategies are still warranted for youth at-risk for SMI, especially those who are more symptomatic and potentially at greater risk of developing an SMI.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".