Listening to the Data: Computational Approaches to Addiction and Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational approaches hold great promise for identifying novel treatment targets and creating translational therapeutics for substance use disorders. From circuitries underlying decision-making to computationally derived neural markers of drug-cue reactivity, this review is a summary of the approaches to data presented at our 2023 Society for Neuroscience Mini-Symposium. Here, we highlight data- and hypothesis-driven computational approaches that recently afforded advancements in addiction and learning neuroscience. First, we discuss the value of hypothesis-driven algorithmic modeling approaches, which integrate behavioral, neural, and cognitive outputs to refine hypothesis testing. Then, we review the advantages of data-driven dimensionality reduction and machine learning methods for uncovering novel predictor variables and elucidating relationships in high-dimensional data. Overall, this review highlights recent breakthroughs in cognitive mapping, model-based analysis of behavior/risky decision-making, patterns of drug taking, relapse, and neuromarker discovery, and showcases the benefits of novel modeling techniques, across both preclinical and clinical data.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".