From individual motivation to substance use initiation: A longitudinal cohort study assessing the associations between reward sensitivity and subsequent risk of substance use initiation among US adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Substance use in youth remains a pressing problem in the United States. Existing studies have shown the importance of neuropathways responsible for affective response and reward motivation in adolescents' substance use initiation and maintenance. However, limited observational studies have explored the relationship between aspects of behavioral motivation traits and the likelihood of substance use initiation in adolescents. In this prospective cohort study, we assessed the associations between behavioral motivation traits based on the Behavioral Inhibition and Approach Systems (BIS-BAS) Scale and substance use initiation using data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study. METHOD: In the 9216 eligible sample population, we assessed the associations between mean Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) / Behavioral Approach System (BAS) scores measured at year 2 of the ABCD study and substance use initiation at year 3 of the ABCD study using multivariable logistic regressions adjusting for ABCD study site, sampling weights, as well as sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: We found that higher BIS mean score was associated with higher odds of initiating substance use at year 3 (AOR=1.20, 95 % CI: 1.03, 1.40). Out of three BAS measure categories, only BAS Fun-seeking mean score was positively associated with higher odds of initiating substance use at year 3 (AOR=1.23, 95 % CI: 1.07, 1.43). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that inhibitory and fun-seeking behavioral tendencies are associated with an increased likelihood of substance use initiation in adolescents. Our findings suggest a potential pathway linking emotional traits to early substance initiation in 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".