Mijke Rhemtulla1, Eiko I Fried2, Steven H Aggen3, Francis Tuerlinckx2, Kenneth S Kendler4, Denny Borsboom5. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: MRhemtulla@uva.nl. 2. Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Leuven, Belgium. 3. Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. 4. Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA; Department of Human and Molecular Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. 5. Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The DSM uses one set of abuse and dependence criteria to assess multiple substance use disorders (SUDs). Most SUD research aggregates across these symptoms to study the behavior of SUD as a static construct. We use an alternative approach that conceptualizes symptoms as directly interacting variables in psychopathological networks. We apply network models to symptom-level data to investigate the unique roles of individual symptoms and their interactions in SUD. METHODS: We analyzed 11 DSM III-R/IV abuse and dependence criteria in a sample of 2405 adult twins who reported use of at least one illicit substance six or more times from the Virginia Adult Twin Study of Psychiatric and Substance Use Disorders (VATSPSUD). We estimated a symptom network for each substance class as well as a global network collapsed across all substance classes. We examined similarities and differences across the 6 networks in terms of symptom-to-symptom connections and symptom centrality. RESULTS: The global network model revealed several interesting symptom connections, such as a strong predictive relation between tolerance and more-than-planned substance use. The most central symptom was using a drug more than planned. In addition, several interesting differences across substances emerged, both in the strength of symptom connections as well as the centrality of symptoms to each network. CONCLUSIONS: When analyzed as networks, abuse and dependence symptoms do not function equivalently across illicit substance classes. These findings suggest the value of analyzing individual symptoms and their associations to gain new insight into the mechanisms of SUD.
BACKGROUND: The DSM uses one set of abuse and dependence criteria to assess multiple substance use disorders (SUDs). Most SUD research aggregates across these symptoms to study the behavior of SUD as a static construct. We use an alternative approach that conceptualizes symptoms as directly interacting variables in psychopathological networks. We apply network models to symptom-level data to investigate the unique roles of individual symptoms and their interactions in SUD. METHODS: We analyzed 11 DSM III-R/IV abuse and dependence criteria in a sample of 2405 adult twins who reported use of at least one illicit substance six or more times from the Virginia Adult Twin Study of Psychiatric and Substance Use Disorders (VATSPSUD). We estimated a symptom network for each substance class as well as a global network collapsed across all substance classes. We examined similarities and differences across the 6 networks in terms of symptom-to-symptom connections and symptom centrality. RESULTS: The global network model revealed several interesting symptom connections, such as a strong predictive relation between tolerance and more-than-planned substance use. The most central symptom was using a drug more than planned. In addition, several interesting differences across substances emerged, both in the strength of symptom connections as well as the centrality of symptoms to each network. CONCLUSIONS: When analyzed as networks, abuse and dependence symptoms do not function equivalently across illicit substance classes. These findings suggest the value of analyzing individual symptoms and their associations to gain new insight into the mechanisms of SUD.
Authors: Richard P Bentall; Paulo de Sousa; Filippo Varese; Sophie Wickham; Katarzyna Sitko; Maria Haarmans; John Read Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Nathan A Gillespie; Michael C Neale; Carol A Prescott; Steven H Aggen; Kenneth S Kendler Journal: Addiction Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: J R DiFranza; J A Savageau; N A Rigotti; K Fletcher; J K Ockene; A D McNeill; M Coleman; C Wood Journal: Tob Control Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: J S Lee; S A Bainter; A W Carrico; T R Glynn; B G Rogers; C Albright; C O'Cleirigh; K H Mayer; S A Safren Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2020-05-02
Authors: Justin J Anker; Miriam K Forbes; Zack W Almquist; Jeremiah S Menk; Paul Thuras; Amanda S Unruh; Matt G Kushner Journal: J Abnorm Psychol Date: 2017-02-09
Authors: Mohammad H Afzali; Matthew Sunderland; Philip J Batterham; Natacha Carragher; Alison Calear; Tim Slade Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2016-12-24 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Eduardo Fonseca-Pedrero; Javier Ortuño; Martin Debbané; Raymond C K Chan; David Cicero; Lisa C Zhang; Colleen Brenner; Emma Barkus; Richard J Linscott; Thomas Kwapil; Neus Barrantes-Vidal; Alex Cohen; Adrian Raine; Michael T Compton; Erin B Tone; Julie Suhr; Felix Inchausti; Julio Bobes; Axit Fumero; Stella Giakoumaki; Ioannis Tsaousis; Antonio Preti; Michael Chmielewski; Julien Laloyaux; Anwar Mechri; Mohamed Aymen Lahmar; Viviana Wuthrich; Frank Larøi; Johanna C Badcock; Assen Jablensky; Adela M Isvoranu; Sacha Epskamp; Eiko I Fried Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 9.306