MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133855408 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18878170

Preliminary evidence that alcohol-related cues enhance facial emotion recognition speed and accuracy in polysubstance users

2025· article· en· W7133855408 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. Pierpaolo, Brundu Maria Gabriella

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolysubstance dependenceFacial expressionCravingMoodAngerDisgustEmotion recognitionAlexithymiaInterpersonal communication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: There is evidence of impaired facial emotion recognition (FER) in individuals with substance use disorder (SUD). While previous studies have primarily examined group differences in FER performance, the influence of contextual factors remains poorly understood. This study investigates how alcohol-related stimuli (ARS) influence FER in polysubstance users, aiming to uncover potential mechanisms that could contribute to relapse in alcoholassociated environments. Methods: Eighty-two patients with polysubstance use with cocaine and alcohol as primary drugs receiving treatment at a public addiction service and 45 control participants completed two sequentially tasks administered in a counterbalanced order: a FER task (EMO) and a recognition task (ALC) incorporating ARS. Clinical data - including comorbidities, medications, substance use patterns and craving mesures - were collected through routine clinical documentation, complemented by standardized instruments: the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), Profile of Mood States (POMS), Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-47) Findings: Patients demonstrated significantly faster reaction times (RTs) for disgust, and enhanced anger recognition accuracy following ARS exposure compared to controls . These results suggest alcohol-context modulation of FER in polysubstance users. The authors discuss the implications and relevance of these findings for relapse prevention.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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