“I feel good when I drink”—detecting childhood-onset alcohol abuse and dependence in a Ugandan community trial cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alcohol, substance use, and mental health disorders constitute major public health issues worldwide, including in low income and lower middle-income countries, and early initiation of use is an important predictor for developing substance use disorders in later life. This study reports on the existence of childhood alcohol abuse and dependence in a sub-study of a trial cohort in Eastern Uganda. METHODS: The project SeeTheChild-Mental Child Health in Uganda (STC) included a sub-study of the Ugandan site of the study PROMISE SB: Saving Brains in Uganda and Burkina Faso. PROMISE SB was a follow-up study of a trial birth cohort (PROMISE EBF) that estimated the effect that peer counselling for exclusive breast-feeding had on the children's cognitive functioning and mental health once they reached 5-8 years of age. The STC sub-study (N = 148) used the diagnostic tool MINI-KID to assess mental health conditions in children who scored medium and high (≥ 14) on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in the PROMISE SB cohort N = (119/148; 80.4%). Another 29/148 (19.6%) were recruited from the PROMISE SB cohort as a comparator with low SDQ scores (< 14). Additionally, the open-ended questions in the diagnostic history were analysed. The MINI-KID comprised diagnostic questions on alcohol abuse and dependence, and descriptive data from the sub-study are presented in this paper. RESULTS: A total of 11/148 (7.4%) children scored positive for alcohol abuse and dependence in this study, 10 of whom had high SDQ scores (≥ 14). The 10 children with SDQ-scores ≥ 14 had a variety of mental health comorbidities of which suicidality 3/10 (30.0%) and separation anxiety disorder 5/10 (50.0%) were the most common. The one child with an SDQ score below 14 did not have any comorbidities. Access to homemade brew, carer's knowledge of the drinking, and difficult household circumstances were issues expressed in the children's diagnostic histories. CONCLUSIONS: Trial registration for PROMISE SB: Saving Brains in Uganda and Burkina Faso: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01882335), 20 June 2013. Regrettably, there was a 1 month delay in the registration compared to the commenced re-inclusion in the follow-up study: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01882335?term=saving+brains&draw=2&rank=1.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".