Depression and Cognitive Impairment in a Spanish Sample of Psychoactive Substance Users Receiving Mental Health Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Numerous studies state that the abuse of psychoactive substances produces cognitive, emotional and behavioral disorders. The aim of this study is to analyze the relationship between the consumption of different psychoactive substances with cognitive performance and depression. (2) Methods: The sample was composed of 254 individuals (M = 41.81; SD = 10.74, from 18 to 69; 76% male) who received psychological treatment related to the use of substances. Participants were classified according to the main substance consumed: alcohol (42.9%), cannabis (20.5%), cocaine (15.4%), heroin (13%) and benzodiazepines (8.3%). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Beck’s Depression Inventory were administrated. (3) The results indicated no statistically significant differences between levels of depression depending on the substance consumed. Regarding cognitive impairment, it was found that cocaine consumers have the worst level of cognitive impairment, while cannabis consumers have the best level of cognitive functioning. Finally, it was found that participants with severe depression have higher cognitive impairment than those who were diagnosed with moderate depression. (4) Conclusions: Given the high prevalence of depression and cognitive impairment with the abuse of psychoactive substances, early treatment is recommended to avoid a higher cognitive and emotional affectation.
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 | 0.000 | 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".