Examining differential responses to the Take Care of Me trial: A latent class and moderation analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
. Although the treatment had an impact on several secondary outcomes, effects were not observed for the primary outcome. Therefore, the goal of the current study was to examine heterogeneity in treatment responses. The initial RCT randomized participants to either a treatment or psychoeducational control condition. We conducted an exploratory latent class analysis to distinguish individuals based on pre-treatment risk and then used moderated regressions to examine differential treatment responses based on class membership. We found evidence for three distinct groups. Most participants fell in the "low severity" group (n = 123), followed by the "moderate severity" group (n = 57) who had a higher likelihood of endorsing a previous mental health diagnosis and treatment and higher symptom severity than the low group. The "high severity" group (n = 42) endorsed a family history of alcoholism, and the highest symptom severity and executive dysfunction. Moderated regressions revealed significant class differences in treatment responses. In the treatment condition, high severity (relative to low) participants reported higher alcohol consumption and hazardous drinking and lower quality of life at follow-up, whereas moderate severity (relative to low) individuals had lower alcohol consumption at follow-up, and lower hazardous drinking at end-of-treatment. No class differences were found for participants in the control group. Higher risk individuals in the treatment condition had poorer responses to the program. Tailoring interventions to severity may be important to examine in future research.
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 | 0.105 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".