Risk of drop-out in patients with alcohol-, and/or cocaine-, gambling and other atypical addictions during a short residential treatment (Villa Soranzo, Venice, Italy)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Issue/ problem\nAlcohol addiction is a phenomenon in rapid changing. In\nItaly Villa Soranzo (Venice) is one of the first residential\ncommunities which systematically tries to treat single alcohol\naddictions together with cocaine dependencies, polyabuse\nof alcohol and cocaine and other atypical addictions like\ngambling using a short specialized psychotherapeutic program.\nBut what about the results regarding outcome (drop-out)?\nDescription of the problem\nFrom Jan 2011 to Feb 2013 data were collected from 380\npatients (301 males) that started the short residential program.\n152 had a single alcohol dependency (A), 108 a cocaine\naddiction (C), 60 a mixed dependency (alcohol and cocaine -\nAC), 60 were ‘‘atypical’’ (isolated gambling addiction, poly-\naddiction and others - AT). For 294 of those patients we\nalso collected other socio-demographic data as well as their\noutcome (drop-out vs regular program). 239 of the patients\nalso compiled schedules on their motivation levels (MAC2A)\nand their levels of self-control against addiction impulses\n(DTCQ, one schedule non valid).\nResults (effects/ changes)\nThe group only affected by alcohol addiction was significantly\nolder than all the other groups (C, AC, AT) (2st-test, p < 0.05).\nDrop-out: There was no significant difference between males\nand females (Fisher’s Exact, p = 0.657), no difference between\nmarried persons and others (p = 0.215), no difference between\npersons with and without children (p = 0.705), no difference\nbetween persons with and without previous hospitalizations\n(Fisher’s Exact, p = 0.141). Only one diagnostic group of the\natypical addictions (AT) differed significantly from all others\n(A, C, AC). The atypical addictions dropped more often (log\nrank test for equality <0.05) and their dropping was\nsignificantly correlated to their levels of motivation (Mann-\nWhitney u-test, p < 0.05) and to self-control against addiction\nimpulses (DTCQ- scale: control) (Mann-Whitney u-test,\np < 0.05).\nAnnis HM, Sklar SN, Turner NE. The Drug-Taking\nConfidence Questionnaire (DTCQ): User’s Guide. Addiction\nResearch Foundation; Toronto, Canada: 1997\nSpiller V., Zavan V., Guelfi GP: Assessing motivation for\nchange in subjects with alcohol problems: the MAC2-A\nquestionnaire, in: Alcohol Alcohol. 2006 Nov-Dec; 41(6):616-\n23. Epub 2006 Oct 7\nKey messages\nPure alcohol patients in a short residential program in Italy\nare older than patients with other addictions (cocaine\naddiction, gambling etc), probably consequence of the\nknown new stiles of abuse.\nPatients with alcohol and/or cocaine addictions in a short\nresidential program don’t differ regarding drop-out. Other\ndiagnosis appear worse but their outcome depends on their\nmotivational level.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".