Age of Onset and DSM-5 Alcohol Use Disorder in Late Adolescence – A Cohort Study From Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine if the prevalence of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition alcohol use disorder (AUD) differs between two groups with different age of onset of alcohol use and if endorsement of different AUD criteria differs between the two groups. METHODS: A two-wave longitudinal prospective cohort survey conducted in Sweden (2017-2019) with a nationwide sample of 3,999 adolescents aged 15/16 years at baseline (T1), and 17/18 years at follow-up (T2); 2,778 current drinkers at T2 were analysed. Participants were categorized into early onset of drinking (drinking already at T1 54.3%) or late onset (not drinking at T1 but at T2, 45.8%). AUD was measured with questions corresponding to the 11 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition criteria for AUD. Potential confounding factors measured at T1 were sex, sensation-seeking, impulsivity, emotional symptoms, peer problems, conduct problems, and hyperactivity. RESULTS: The early onset group had a higher prevalence of AUD at T2 compared to the late onset group (36.3% vs. 23.1%, p < .001). The higher risk of AUD remained significant in a linear probability model with control for additional confounding factors (β = 0.080, p < .001). All individual criteria were reported more in the early onset group, and there was no evidence of differential item functioning. DISCUSSION: The age of onset of alcohol use was a significant predictor of AUD in late adolescence among Swedish adolescents. Those with an earlier onset of alcohol use had a higher prevalence of AUD and of all individual criteria. The items in the scale were similarly predictive of AUD in both groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".