ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Predicting individual differences in digital alcohol intervention effectiveness through multimodal data.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Digital interventions can change behaviors like alcohol use, but effectiveness varies widely across individuals. Accurately identifying non-responders-i.e., those least (vs. most) likely to change their behavior-before intervention delivery is difficult. Individual intervention effectiveness predictions from prior studies perform only slightly above chance (e.g., AUC ≈0.60; balanced accuracy ≈0.60). We present a novel approach integrating multimodal data across theory-driven domains-including psychological assessments, social network data, and neural responses to alcohol cues-to make ex-ante predictions about the effectiveness of smartphone-delivered alcohol interventions targeting psychological distancing in young adults (Study 1: N = 67; Study 2: N = 114). Demonstrating the feasibility of this approach, random forest models predicted individual differences in intervention effectiveness (Study 1: balanced accuracy = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.69-0.73, p = .020; AUC = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.85-0.88, p = .020) and replicated in a an external test sample (Study 2, balanced accuracy = 0.68; AUC = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.54-0.82), meeting clinical-utility thresholds from prior digital health studies (balanced accuracy = 0.67; correctly classifying (non)responders 67% of the time). Interventions were most effective for participants who perceived their peers as moderate but frequent drinkers. Peer drinking perceptions may serve as a low-burden indicator to support early identification of non-responders in preventive alcohol interventions among young adults. Future work can apply and extend the multimodal approach developed here for adaptive tailoring of digital behavior change interventions in real-world settings.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.