Impulsivity and Cognitive Functioning in Inpatients with Concurrent Disorders: A Comparative Study with Healthy Controls and Evaluation of Treatment-Related Changes: Impulsivité et fonctionnement cognitif chez les patients hospitalisés présentant des troubles concomitants : étude comparative avec des témoins sains et évaluation des changements liés au traitement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impairments in impulse control and related neurocognitive functioning have been well documented in both substance use and mental disorder populations. While high impulsivity and other executive dysfunction have been linked to negative treatment outcomes in these populations, no study to date has examined their clinical relevance among individuals with co-occurring substance use and mental disorders (or concurrent disorders [CD]). Objective This study investigated impulsivity and working memory among CD inpatients across treatment and compared to controls. Methods Patients ( N = 56, M age = 38.2, SD = 11.7, 17F) and healthy controls ( N = 50, M age = 31.9, SD = 10.0, 25F) completed a battery of self-report questionnaires and behavioural tasks assessing working memory and impulsivity (response inhibition, delay discounting, reflection, decision-making). Patients were assessed within 2 weeks of admission (baseline) and at 6 months (follow-up). Controls completed a single session at baseline. Patient demographics, diagnostic status, and treatment outcome (discharge with or without medical advice) were retrieved from medical records. Results Group differences in demographics were probed for inclusion as covariates. At baseline, patients had greater self-reported impulsivity on the UPPS-P (negative and positive urgency) and BIS (motor and non-planning), and greater delay discounting than controls. Among patients, there was no association between treatment adherence and working memory, self-report, or behavioural impulsivity, and no change in behavioural impulsivity was observed from baseline to follow-up. Conclusions This is the first study to assess impulsivity and working memory in the context of CD treatment. Patients exhibited greater impulsivity on choice-based and various self-report measures. The absence of treatment-related changes in impulsivity and working memory outcomes suggests that conventional treatments may be neglecting to target potentially key areas of functioning. Further research is needed to examine how treatment affects impulsivity and related functions in individuals with CD, and their impact on clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".