Relative abuse potential of opioid formulations in Canada: A structured field study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While prescription opioids can improve quality of life through pain relief they are susceptible to misuse. This field study characterizes the relative susceptibility and attractiveness of a new analgesic patch, with fentanyl embedded in a matrix material, compared to other opioid dose formulations. METHODS: Recreational opioid abusers (N = 42; 31 male, 1 female)from three Canadian sites participated in structured interviews. They were presented with nine products, some of which were hypothetical (fentanyl [F], hydromorphone [H], and oxycodone [O] in each of three formulations: matrix patch [M], reservoir-type gel patch [G], and tablet [T]). The attractiveness and tampering potential of each product was ranked using two 7-point Likert scales (Value of Product and Likelihood to Tamper), an index representing the product of the two scales, a 17-item Opiate Attractiveness Scale (OAS), relative street value, and rank order of overall desirability. Non-parametric analyses were used to compare each product to the FM. RESULTS: The FT, HT, and FM were highly valued and most likely to be tampered with. The products were ranked in decreasing order of desirability as follows: FT > HT > FM > FG > OT > HM > HG > OM > OG. On the OAS, FM was more attractive than all gel-patch products (p < 0.001), and OT was most attractive overall. FM was statistically similar to OT, FT, OM, and HT. Of the 42 subjects, 25 (60 percent) preferred the matrix patch to the gel patch. Of the 17 subjects who preferred the gel patch, 10 (59 percent) were from a region generally unfamiliar with that formulation. CONCLUSIONS: Fentanyl is attractive to opioid abusers regardless of formulation. In Canada, a fentanyl matrix patch may be at higher risk for diversion, tampering, and abuse than other transdermal opioid formulations. These findings should be confirmed by epidemiological studies. Comparative risk management programs should be part of the development of any new narcotic delivery system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".