MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W141885096 · doi:10.1055/s-2000-15607

Heroingestützte Therapie für Opiatabhängige - weder Allheilmittel noch Teufelswerk

2000· article· de· W141885096 on OpenAlexaff
Jürgen Rehm, Benedikt Fischer

Bibliographic record

VenueSuchttherapie · 2000
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGynecologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyPhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ethische, wissenschaftliche und praktische Probleme bei der Behandlung von Opiatabhängigen unter Einsatz von Heroin als Substitutionsmittel werden erörtert. Diese Probleme ergeben sich zum einen aus der Tatsache, dass Heroinversuche derzeit nicht als klassische biochemische Doppelblindversuche durchgeführt und dass Konfundierungen mit anderen Variablen nicht ausgeschlossen werden können (z. B. Dauer der Betreuung, Reaktivität). Zum anderen sind Heroinversuche in den meisten Ländern stark ideologisiert und deshalb muss mit verschiedenen praktischen Problemen bei der Umsetzung gerechnet werden. Beide Punkte werden an aktuellen Beispielen aus verschiedenen Ländern illustriert. In den Schlussfolgerungen plädieren die Autoren für einen rationaleren Umgang beim Einsatz von Heroin in der Substitu­tionsbehandlung von Opiatabhängigen und für den Aufbau von Behandlungssystemen in diesem Bereich, die Therapien mit verschiedenen Methoden (unter Einschluss anderer Substitutionsbehandlungen und Abstinenztherapien) anbieten, wobei aufgrund von wissenschaftlichen Ergebnissen eine individuelle Zuordnung von Patient und Therapie vorgenommen werden soll. Heroin Supported Therapy for Opioid Addicts - neither Panacea nor Devilry Ethical, scientifical and practical problems concerning substitution treatment for opiate addicts involving heroin as substitution agent are discussed. Main scientific problems concern the impossibility to conduct a heroin trial as a classic biochemical double-blind experiment and the impossibility to completely rule out confounding (e. g. duration of contact with therapists, reactivity). In addition, there are political and ideological debates concerning such trials, which cause practical problems. Both points are illustrated with examples from different countries. The conclusions argue for a more rational consideration of the application of heroin within substitution treatment for opiate addicts. Also, we should try to build treatment systems in this field, where different kinds of therapeutic approaches are offered (including the use of other substitution agents and abstinence-oriented therapies) and where matching of patient and therapy will be based on scientific knowledge.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSuchttherapieSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207