Trajectory analysis of AUD symptom counts over follow-up showed the model BIC for two, three, or four trajectory groups of −674, −667, and −672, respectively. That is, 2ΔBIC increased by 15 comparing the two- and three-trajectory models but decreased by 10 when comparing three- and four-trajectory models. Using 2ΔBIC ≥10 as strong evidence for rejecting the null model (40), the three-group model best described the data. This yielded low (n = 34), intermediate (n = 60), and high (n = 10) AUD symptom groups. The validity of these groups as showing meaningful behavioral differences was supported by other measures including drinking quantity, drinking frequency, binge-drinking frequency, AUDIT, and Drinker Inventory of Consequences scores, which showed a linear progression among the AUD groups (Table 3). Notably, all participants in the high AUD group met AD criteria at least once during follow-up, compared with 26% in the intermediate group and none in the low group. The progression of AUD symptoms and binge-drinking frequency are shown in Figure 1A and B. Alcohol responses, relative to placebo, for stimulation, sedation, like, and want more
