Do traumatic events and substance use co‐occur during adolescence? Testing three causal etiologic hypotheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Why do potentially traumatic events (PTEs) and substance use (SU) so commonly co-occur during adolescence? Causal hypotheses developed from the study of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance use disorder (SUD) among adults have not yet been subject to rigorous theoretical analysis or empirical tests among adolescents with the precursors to these disorders: PTEs and SU. Establishing causality demands accounting for various factors (e.g. genetics, parent education, race/ethnicity) that distinguish youth endorsing PTEs and SU from those who do not, a step often overlooked in previous research. METHODS: We leveraged nationwide data from a sociodemographically diverse sample of youth (N = 11,468) in the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development Study. PTEs and substance use prevalence were assessed annually. To account for the many pre-existing differences between youth with and without PTE/SU (i.e. confounding bias) and provide rigorous tests of causal hypotheses, we linked within-person changes in PTEs and SU (alcohol, cannabis, nicotine) across repeated measurements and adjusted for time-varying factors (e.g. age, internalizing symptoms, externalizing symptoms, and friends' use of substances). RESULTS: Before adjusting for confounding using within-person modeling, PTEs and SU exhibited significant concurrent associations (βs = .46-1.26, ps < .05) and PTEs prospectively predicted greater SU (βs = .55-1.43, ps < .05) but not vice versa. After adjustment for confounding, the PTEs exhibited significant concurrent associations for alcohol (βs = .14-.23, ps < .05) and nicotine (βs = .16, ps < .05) but not cannabis (βs = -.01, ps > .05) and PTEs prospectively predicted greater SU (βs = .28-.55, ps > .05) but not vice versa. CONCLUSIONS: When tested rigorously in a nationwide sample of adolescents, we find support for a model in which PTEs are followed by SU but not for a model in which SU is followed by PTEs. Explanations for why PTSD and SUD co-occur in adults may need further theoretical analysis and adaptation before extension to adolescents.
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 | 0.017 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".