MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comorbidity of Anxiety and Depression with Substance Use Disorders

2014· book· en· W304278104 on OpenAlexaff
Sherry H. Stewart, Valerie V. Grant, Clare Mackie, Patricia Conrod

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2014
Typebook
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComorbidityAnxietyClinical psychologyDepression (economics)Substance usePsychologyPsychiatrySubstance abuseEpidemiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The comorbidity of substance use disorders (SUDs) with anxiety and depression is the focus of substantial research attention and approached from myriad perspectives. This chapter focuses on the resultant complex research literature, first providing an overview of epidemiologic studies that have examined the prevalence of co-occurrence of SUDs (including alcohol and other drug use disorders) with anxiety and depressive disorders, as well as clinical correlates of these forms of comorbidity. Next, theoretical models of the onset and maintenance of emotional disorder–SUD comorbidity are considered, followed by a review of various types of studies evaluating these theoretical models (studies focusing on order-of-onset, the independent versus substance-induced disorder distinction, self-reported motives for use, genetic epidemiology, and experimental studies). Distinctions and commonalities between anxiety–SUD associations and depression–SUD associations are examined throughout. The chapter concludes by examining treatment implications of this comorbidity and suggests future directions for this burgeoning field.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207