Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31812982›Full record

ArticleJAMA psychiatry2020

Computational Markers of Risky Decision-making for Identification of Temporal Windows of Vulnerability to Opioid Use in a Real-world Clinical Setting.

Anna B Konova, Silvia Lopez-Guzman, Adelya Urmanche, Stephen Ross, Kenway Louie, John Rotrosen, Paul W Glimcher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Rapid and reliable computational markers of decision-making for predicting daily smoking behavior and smoking cessation treatment outcomes.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Largely Intact But Less Reliable and Distributed Neural Representations of Subjective Value in Human Opioid Addiction.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Human factors in triaging forensic items: Casework pressures and ambiguity aversion.Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society · 2025
    Article
  16. Social Risk Coding by Amygdala Activity and Connectivity with the Dorsal Anterior Cingulate Cortex.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Anna B KonovaBrain Health Institute, Department of Psychiatry, University Behavioral Health Care, Rutgers University-New Brunswick, Piscataway, New Jersey.
Silvia Lopez-GuzmanNeuroscience Institute, New York University School of Medicine, New York.
Adelya UrmancheDepartment of Psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine, New York.
Stephen RossDepartment of Psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine, New York.
Kenway LouieNeuroscience Institute, New York University School of Medicine, New York.
John RotrosenDepartment of Psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine, New York.
Paul W GlimcherNeuroscience Institute, New York University School of Medicine, New York.

Funding

Computational neuroeconomic models of addiction: quantifying progression and treatment in opioid use disorderR01DA043676 · NIDA · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI GLIMCHER, PAUL W, ROTROSEN, JOHN P · 2017 to 2021
$2.1M
Neuroeconomic investigation of craving in opioid addictionF32DA039648 · NIDA · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI KONOVA, ANNA BORISOVA · 2015 to 2017
$164k
NIDA NIH HHS F32 DA039648NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA043676
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Opioid addiction is a major public health problem. Despite availability of evidence-based treatments, relapse and dropout are common outcomes. Efforts aimed at identifying reuse risk and gaining more precise understanding of the mechanisms conferring reuse vulnerability are needed. Objective: To use tools from computational psychiatry and decision neuroscience to identify changes in decision-making processes preceding opioid reuse. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cohort of individuals with opioid use disorder were studied longitudinally at a community-based treatment setting for up to 7 months (1-15 sessions per person). At each session, patients completed a risky decision-making task amenable to computational modeling and standard clinical assessments. Time-lagged mixed-effects logistic regression analyses were used to assess the likelihood of opioid use between sessions (t to t + 1; within the subsequent 1-4 weeks) from data acquired at the current session (t). A cohort of control participants completed similar procedures (1-5 sessions per person), serving both as a baseline comparison group and an independent sample in which to assess measurement test-retest reliability. Data were analyzed between January 1, 2018, and September 5, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Two individual model-based behavioral markers were derived from the task completed at each session, capturing a participant's current tolerance of known risks and ambiguity (partially unknown risks). Current anxiety, craving, withdrawal, and nonadherence were assessed via interview and clinic records. Opioid use was ascertained from random urine toxicology tests and self-reports. Results: Seventy patients (mean [SE] age, 44.7 [1.3] years; 12 women and 58 men [82.9% male]) and 55 control participants (mean [SE] age, 42.4 [1.5] years; 13 women and 42 men [76.4% male]) were included. Of the 552 sessions completed with patients (mean [SE], 7.89 [0.59] sessions per person), 252 (45.7%) directly preceded opioid use events (mean [SE], 3.60 [0.44] sessions per person). From the task parameters, only ambiguity tolerance was significantly associated with increased odds of prospective opioid use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.07-1.76]), indicating patients were more tolerant specifically of ambiguous risks prior to these use events. The association of ambiguity tolerance with prospective use was independent of established clinical factors (adjusted odds ratio, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.01-1.65]; P = .04), such that a model combining these factors explained more variance in reuse risk. No significant differences in ambiguity tolerance were observed between patients and control participants, who completed 197 sessions (mean [SE], 3.58 [0.21] sessions per person); however, patients were more tolerant of known risks (B = 0.56 [95% CI, 0.05-1.07]). Conclusions and Relevance: Computational approaches can provide mechanistic insights about the cognitive factors underlying opioid reuse vulnerability and may hold promise for clinical use.

Indexed as

Decision MakingRisk-TakingAdultCase-Control StudiesComputer SimulationFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleOpioid-Related DisordersProspective StudiesRisk FactorsTime FactorsUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID31812982
PMCPMC6902203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.