Associations of delay discounting and drinking trajectories from ages 14 to 22
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While drinking alcohol, one must choose between the immediate rewarding effects and the delayed reward of a healthier lifestyle. Individuals differ in their devaluation of a delayed reward based on the time required to receive it, i.e., delay discounting (DD). Previous studies have shown that adolescents discount more steeply than adults and that steeper DD is associated with heavier alcohol use in both groups. METHODS: In a large-scale longitudinal study, we investigated whether higher rates of DD are an antecedent or a consequence of alcohol use during adolescent development. As part of the IMAGEN project, 2220 adolescents completed the Monetary Choice Questionnaire as a DD measure, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, and the Timeline Follow Back interview at ages 14, 16, 18, and 22. Bivariate latent growth curve models were applied to investigate the relationship between DD and drinking. To explore the consequences of drinking, we computed the cumulative alcohol consumption and correlated it with the development of discounting. A subsample of 221 participants completed an intertemporal choice task (iTeCh) during functional magnetic resonance imaging at ages 14, 16, and 18. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to differentiate between high-risk and low-risk drinkers on the development of neural processing during intertemporal choices. RESULTS: Overall, high rates of DD at age 14 predicted a greater increase in drinking over 8 years. In contrast, on average, moderate alcohol use did not affect DD from ages 14 to 22. Of note, we found indicators for less brain activity in top-down control areas during intertemporal choices in the participants who drank more. CONCLUSIONS: Steep DD was shown to be a predictor rather than a consequence of alcohol use in low-level drinking adolescents. Important considerations for future longitudinal studies are the sampling strategies to be used and the reliability of the assessments.
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) | 0.000 | 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".