Socioeconomic and substance use changes in emerging adults and their relationship with mood disorders in a population-based cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 231 at baseline), in which participants were reassessed at a mean of 5 years after baseline. A structured clinical interview was used to diagnose the participants with bipolar disorder and major depression; a control group without mood disorders was included. Men with mood disorders were less likely to be married in the beginning of the study and less likely to work in the follow-up. Women with major depression were less likely to study and more likely to be in a lower economic class at the beginning of the study. In comparison, women with bipolar disorder were less likely to live with their parents and more likely to live with their children in the first wave of the study. Substance misuse was more likely in people with mood disorders, especially in men, and women with bipolar disorder had the highest likelihood in the follow-up. Albeit longitudinal analyses were limited by a possibly insufficient sample size and mediating mechanisms for change, such as stigma, were not explored, the study suggests sex-related specificities regarding the change in social roles and substance use in people with mood disorders. Emerging adults, especially those with mood disorders, are in a period of change and instability and at a greater risk for substance use and abuse.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".