Observational studyAddiction (Abingdon, England)2026
Diagnostic validity of Addictions Neuroclinical Assessment indices for alcohol use disorder: Findings from an observational case-control study.
Observational study in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Functional magnetic response imaging predictors of alcohol use disorder treatment outcome: a systematic review.Alcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire) · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic validity of Addictions Neuroclinical Assessment indices for alcohol use disorder: Findings from an observational case-control study.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe Addictions Neuroclinical Assessment (ANA) provides a framework for assessing alcohol use disorder (AUD) with indices that may be both mechanistically and diagnostically informative. This study evaluated an array of measures from the three ANA domains in relation to AUD diagnostic status.
designThis cross-sectional case-control study used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to evaluate diagnostic classification validity using area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Exploratory multivariate models using logistic regression were also evaluated using the same metrics. SETTING AND
participantsParticipants were 189 general community adults (52% AUD+, 57% female, M MEASUREMENTS: Classifiers included measures that conceptually mapped on to the three ANA domains of incentive salience (e.g. alcohol cue reactivity), negative emotionality (e.g. anxiety symptoms, coping motives) and executive function (e.g. NIH-toolkit cognition battery). The clinical criterion (reference standard) was AUD diagnostic status per structured clinical interview.
findingsIncentive salience indices had AUCs from 0.55-0.85; negative emotionality indices had AUCs from 0.67-0.89; and executive function indices had AUCs from 0.51-0.58. For incentive salience, cravings in the cue reactivity paradigm and enhancement motives identified AUD diagnosis above accepted benchmarks for clinical utility. For negative emotionality, coping motives exhibited high diagnostic validity, exceeding clinical utility benchmarks. Exploratory multivariate models combining these indices outperformed the single indicator models.
conclusionsThis study broadly supports using the Addictions Neuroclinical Assessment (ANA) framework for assessing alcohol use disorder (AUD) - specifically the motivational indices from the incentive salience and negative emotionality domains - for the development of next generation diagnostic assessments of AUD using theoretically informed mechanisms. As such, it reflects a further step in moving ANA toward utilization in clinical research and practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.