↓ Skip to main content

The Effectiveness of the Game of Dice Task in Predicting At-Risk and Problem Gambling Among Adolescents: The Contribution of the Neural Networks

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gambling Studies, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
The Effectiveness of the Game of Dice Task in Predicting At-Risk and Problem Gambling Among Adolescents: The Contribution of the Neural Networks
Published in
Journal of Gambling Studies, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10899-018-9796-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Anna Donati, Andrea Frosini, Viola Angela Izzo, Caterina Primi

Abstract

The Game of Dice Task (GDT; Brand et al. in Neuropsychology 19:267-277, 2005a; Psychiatry Res 133:91-99, 2005b) measures decision-making under objective risk conditions. Although disadvantageous decision-making has been shown in individuals with substance dependency, such as pathological dependency, any studies have been conducted with adolescents by using the GDT to investigate the relationship between the performance on the task and gambling behavior. Moreover, all the previous studies have considered only the GDT net score and not the single choices. In the current study, focusing on adolescents, we wanted to investigate the relationship between the sequence of the choices at the GDT and gambling behavior, measured with the SOGS-RA. To analyze the predictive power of the sequence of choices made in the GDT and problem gambling and gambling frequency, we used the Neural Networks (NNs), which are often used to find relationships between a series of input actions and the correspondent empirical outputs in order to discover behavioral patterns that may be predictive of at-risk behaviors. Results showed that neither a linear or a non-linear relationship could be detected between the GDT performance and the SOGS-RA classification both in terms of gambling problem severity and gambling frequency. Indeed, different training algorithms produced different performances of the NN on the training sets, but all of them showed a very low prediction capability on new samples. Thus, the performance at the GDT did not discriminate between adolescent gamblers with different and progressive levels of problematic gambling behavior and gambling frequency. Limitations and future studies are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Unspecified 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 21 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Unspecified 3 6%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 24 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gambling Studies
#866
of 990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#298,815
of 341,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gambling Studies
#16
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.