MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414470150 · doi:10.1111/acer.70172

Prevalence, predictors, correlates, and dynamic changes in the NIAAA‐defined “recovery” definition

2025· article· en· W4414470150 on OpenAlexaff
John F. Kelly, Kyla Belisario, James MacKillop

Bibliographic record

VenueAlcohol Clinical and Experimental Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
KeywordsPsychosocialAlcohol use disorderEmpirical researchMEDLINEComponent (thermodynamics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Definitions of alcohol use disorder (AUD) "recovery" abound, but the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) was the first to offer an operational definition ("AUD remission with no heavy drinking"). Little is known about this definition or how it compares to others. Greater knowledge would inform its clinical and public health utility. DESIGN: Multisite, single-group, prospective study of individuals beginning a new AUD recovery attempt (N = 442) assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months on AUD symptoms, alcohol use, and functioning/well-being. Hidden Markov models (HMMs) estimated NIAAA-defined recovery status and other recovery group statuses/transitions. Regressions tested group membership predictors; linear mixed models examined functioning/well-being. RESULTS: Participants were classified into four groups depending on remission status and level of alcohol use: (i) Remission + abstinence (R + A; n = 102); (ii) Remission + low-risk drinking (R + LRD; n=51); (iii) Remission + higher-risk drinking (R + HRD; n = 70); (iv) No remission (NR; n = 219). During follow-up, groups 1 + 2 (NIAAA definition) were quite prevalent (34.6%), evincing patterns of larger psychosocial improvements compared with NR and R + HRD. R + A and R + LRD, however, differed on baseline characteristics, with R + A, similar to NR, being more severe on AUD-related metrics, whereas both remitted but still drinking groups (R + LRD, R + HRD) were less severe. Of note, R + A was the most stably remitted group; R + LRD and R + HRD were less stable, moving increasingly into NR. Unlike R + HRD, who, similar to NR, exhibited persistent lower levels of self-esteem and happiness, NIAAA-defined groups were associated with widespread improvements. CONCLUSION: The NIAAA recovery definition was consistent with empirical outcomes exhibited by the R + A and R + LRD profiles, with both showing large psychosocial improvements, but who may represent different AUD phenotypes/stages. Despite R + A exhibiting a pattern of historically greater clinical severity, they demonstrated more stable remission compared with both the NIAAA recovery definition-inclusive R + LRD, but especially R + HRD. Ongoing alcohol use appears to destabilize remission, with heavier use associated with less psychosocial improvement and AUD reinstatement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlcohol Clinical and Experimental ResearchSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207