Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26154448›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of drug and alcohol abuse2015

The importance of distribution-choice in modeling substance use data: a comparison of negative binomial, beta binomial, and zero-inflated distributions.

Brandie Wagner, Paula Riggs, Susan Mikulich-Gilbertson

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Explaining "U-shaped" distributions of population substance use with a simple computational approach.Journal of artificial societies and social simulation : JASSS · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Brandie Wagnera Department of Biostatistics and Informatics , and.
Paula Riggsb Department of Psychiatry , University of Colorado , Aurora , CO , USA.
Susan Mikulich-Gilbertsona Department of Biostatistics and Informatics , and.

Funding

Drug and Comorbid Trajectories: Jointly-Modeled, Differently-Distributed OutcomesR01DA034604 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI MIKULICH-GILBERTSON, SUSAN KAY · 2013 to 2015
$889k
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA034604
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is important to correctly understand the associations among addiction to multiple drugs and between co-occurring substance use and psychiatric disorders. Substance-specific outcomes (e.g. number of days used cannabis) have distributional characteristics which range widely depending on the substance and the sample being evaluated.

objectivesWe recommend a four-part strategy for determining the appropriate distribution for modeling substance use data. We demonstrate this strategy by comparing the model fit and resulting inferences from applying four different distributions to model use of substances that range greatly in the prevalence and frequency of their use.

methodsUsing Timeline Followback (TLFB) data from a previously-published study, we used negative binomial, beta-binomial and their zero-inflated counterparts to model proportion of days during treatment of cannabis, cigarettes, alcohol, and opioid use. The fit for each distribution was evaluated with statistical model selection criteria, visual plots and a comparison of the resulting inferences.

resultsWe demonstrate the feasibility and utility of modeling each substance individually and show that no single distribution provides the best fit for all substances. Inferences regarding use of each substance and associations with important clinical variables were not consistent across models and differed by substance.

conclusionThus, the distribution chosen for modeling substance use must be carefully selected and evaluated because it may impact the resulting conclusions. Furthermore, the common procedure of aggregating use across different substances may not be ideal.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalStatistical DistributionsAdolescentDiagnosis, Dual (Psychiatry)FemaleHumansMaleMental DisordersSubstance-Related DisordersYoung AdultBeta binomialnegative binomialsubstance useTimeline Followbackzero inflated

Identifiers

PMID26154448
PMCPMC4692373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.