MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416085234 · doi:10.1037/pha0000808

Preventing prescription stimulant diversion and misuse through brief intervention: Moderators and secondary outcomes from a randomized controlled trial.

2025· article· en· W4416085234 on OpenAlexaff
Laura J. Holt, Alison Looby, Ty S. Schepis, Richard Feinn

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsStimulantPsychosocialMedical prescriptionPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialSubstance abusePlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 121) in a single-blind design, with 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Conduct problems and being prescribed an immediate release medication were associated with a greater likelihood of PSD, but not PSM; however, conduct problems were not associated with a differential response to the intervention (any PSD/PSM). Compared to the placebo, the intervention group reported lower attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder impairment and substance use at the 6-month follow-up; rates of accidental injuries did not differ between the two groups. Findings suggest the intervention had significant but modest effects on psychosocial outcomes. Future targeted interventions for PSD may focus on students with conduct problem histories and/or immediate release prescriptions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.383 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental and Clinical PsychopharmacologySame topicNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical InnovationsFrench-language works237,207