MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203718848 · doi:10.1186/s13011-021-00404-8

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in the Russian language - a systematic review of validation efforts and application challenges

2021· review· en· W3203718848 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Neufeld, Anna Bunova, Carina Ferreira‐Borges, E.V. Fadeeva, Artyom Gil, Б. Э. Горный, Daria Khaltourina, Evgenia Koshkina, А. В. Надеждин, Elena Tetenova, Melita Vujnović, Konstantin Vyshinsky, Elena Yurasova, Jürgen Rehm

Bibliographic record

VenueSubstance Abuse Treatment Prevention and Policy · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoMental Health Research CanadaCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersMinistry of Health of the Russian Federation
KeywordsAuditAlcohol Use Disorders Identification TestTest (biology)Scale (ratio)MedicinePopulationHealth careIdentification (biology)Systematic reviewFamily medicineMEDLINEPsychologyEnvironmental healthBusinessPolitical sciencePoison controlGeographyAccountingInjury prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is one of the most frequently used screening instrument for hazardous and harmful use of alcohol and potential alcohol dependence in primary health care (PHC) and other settings worldwide. It has been translated into many languages and adapted and modified for use in some countries, following formal adaptation procedures and validation studies. In the Russian Federation, the AUDIT has been used in different settings and by different health professionals, including addiction specialists (narcologists). In 2017, it was included as a screening instrument in the national guidelines of routine preventive health checks at the population-level (dispanserization). However, various Russian translations of the AUDIT are known to be in use in different settings and, so far, little is known about the empirical basis and validation of the instrument in Russia-a country, which is known for its distinct drinking patterns and their detrimental impact on health. The present contribution is the summary of two systematic reviews that were carried out to inform a planned national validation study of the AUDIT in Russia.Two systematic searches were carried out to 1) identify all validation efforts of the AUDIT in Russia and to document all reported problems encountered, and 2) identify all globally existing Russian translations of the AUDIT and document their differences and any reported issues in their application. The qualitative narrative synthesis of all studies that met the inclusion criteria of the first search highlighted the absence of any large-scale rigorous validation study of the AUDIT in primary health care in Russia, while a document analysis of all of the 122 Russian translations has revealed 61 unique versions, most of which contained inconsistencies and signaled obvious application challenges of the test.The results clearly signal the need for a validation study of the Russian AUDIT.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.151
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.151
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0140.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.330 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSubstance Abuse Treatment Prevention and PolicySame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207