MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Substance use and associated factors among Iranian university students: a meta-analysis

2021· article· en· W6976859441 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubstance useDrugCigarette smokingAlcoholSubstance abuseCross-sectional study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to identify risk and protective factors associated with substance use among Iranian university students. We searched for studies in English published from January 1, 1995 to February 20, 2021, on PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science to identify primary studies on the factors associated with substance use among university students. Out of 8,481 articles, 39 studies met eligibility criteria. Our findings showed a pooled prevalence rate of alcohol use 23% (95% CI, 8% 39%), smoking 21% (95% CI, 6% 37%) and other drug use 14% (95% CI, 10% 18%) in the last year among student. Hookah use, living alone, being a current cigarette smoker, and other drug use were significantly associated with alcohol use. The findings of the present study showed that being male, older age, alcohol use, had depression, had parents or friends who smoke, and religious beliefs were significantly associated with smoking among students. This meta-analysis also showed that living alone, alcohol use, history of drug use, and hookah use were significantly associated with drug use among students. Substance use prevention programs provided by universities could be improved by signifying high-risk populations addressed by the related literature.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.040
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→