Neuroscience-Informed Classification of Prevention Interventions in Substance Use Disorders: An RDoC-based Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Neuroscience has contributed to uncover the mechanisms underpinning substance use disorders (SUD). The next frontier is to leverage these mechanisms as active targets to create more effective interventions for SUD treatment and prevention. Recent large-scale cohort studies from early childhood are generating multiple levels of neuroscience-based information with the potential to inform the development and refinement of future preventive strategies. However, there are still no available well-recognized frameworks to guide the integration of these multi-level datasets into prevention interventions. The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) provides a neuroscience-based multi-system framework that is well suited to facilitate translation of neurobiological mechanisms into behavioral domains amenable to preventative interventions. We propose a novel RDoC-based framework for prevention science and adapted the framework for the existing preventive interventions. From a systematic review of randomized controlled trials using a person-centered drug/alcohol preventive approach for adolescents, we identified 22 unique preventive interventions. By teasing apart these 22 interventions into the RDoC domains, we proposed distinct neurocognitive trajectories which have been recognized as precursors or risk factors for SUDs, to be targeted, engaged and modified for effective addiction prevention.
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 | 0.098 | 0.204 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".