Examining protective factors for substance use problems and self-harm behavior during adolescence: A longitudinal co-twin control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sports participation, physical activity, and friendship quality are theorized to have protective effects on the developmental emergence of substance use and self-harm behavior in adolescence, but existing research has been mixed. This ambiguity could reflect, in part, the potential for confounding of observed associations by genetic and environmental factors, which previous research has been unable to rigorously rule out. We used data from the prospective, population-based Child and Adolescent Twin Study in Sweden (n= 18,234 born 1994–2001) and applied a co-twin control design to account for potential genetic and environmental confounding of sports participation, physical activity, and friendship quality (assessed at age 15) as presumed protective factors for adolescent substance use and self-harm behavior (assessed at age 18). While confidence intervals widened to include the null in numerous co-twin control analyses adjusting for childhood psychopathology, parent-reported sports participation and twin-reported positive friendship quality were associated with increased odds of alcohol problems and nicotine use. However, parent-reported sports participation, twin-reported physical activity, and twin-reported friendship quality were associated with decreased odds of self-harm behavior. The findings provide a more nuanced understanding of the risks and benefits of putative protective factors for risky behaviors that emerge during adolescence.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".