Latent Profile Analysis of Heavy Episodic Drinking in Emerging Adults: A Reinforcer Pathology Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heavy episodic drinking (HED) is a major public health problem among emerging adults (individuals 18 to 25), but with considerable heterogeneity in concurrent substance use and psychopathology. The current study used latent profile analysis (LPA) to detect discrete subgroups of HED based on alcohol, other drug severity, and concurrent psychopathology. A reinforcer pathology approach was used to understand motivational differences among the latent subgroups. METHODS: Participants were 2 samples of emerging adults reporting regular HED, 1 Canadian (n = 730) and 1 American (n = 602). Indicators for the LPA were validated dimensional self-report assessments of alcohol severity, cannabis severity, other drug severity, nicotine dependence, depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Reinforcer pathology indicators were measures of alcohol demand, proportionate substance-related reinforcement, and discounting of future rewards. RESULTS: The LPA yielded parallel 3-class solutions in both samples. The largest subgroup was characterized by comparatively low substance severity and psychopathology (Low overall severity). The second largest subgroup was characterized by comparatively high alcohol and other drug severity (excluding tobacco) and high levels of psychopathology (Heavy alcohol & high psychiatric severity). The third subgroup exhibited high alcohol, smoking and intermediate levels of other substance use and psychopathology (Heavy alcohol, smoking, & intermediate psychiatric severity). The Heavy alcohol & high psychiatric severity and Heavy alcohol, smoking, & intermediate psychiatric severity subgroups exhibited significantly higher alcohol demand, greater proportionate substance-related reinforcement, and steeper delay discounting. CONCLUSIONS: Parallel latent subgroups of emerging adults engaging in HED were present in both samples, and the high-risk subgroups were significantly differentiated by the reinforcer pathology indicators. These latent profiles may ultimately inform heterogeneity in the longitudinal course of HED in emerging adults.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".