La méthamphétamine – un stimulant comme les autres ou un problème plus complexe ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Methamphetamine (MA) has recently become very popular in the media, due in part to its increasing popularity as well as its psychotropic effects and the negative consequences of its use. Is it a stimulant like any other, or does methamphetamine use lead to specific difficulties in its users? The aim of this article is to provide a brief review of the literature by explaining some of the reasons for its popularity in Canada as well as the physical, dental, psychiatric, cognitive and legal problems associated with its use. MA's popularity: Regarding its popularity, MA has benefitted from multiple factors, namely its low cost for users and manufacturers, its quick and intense psychotropic effects (increased energy, sexual arousal, rapid thinking, sleeplessness, lack of appetite), its easy access, as well as its various methods of ingestion (nasal, oral, injection). MA abuse also results in a multitude of negative effects, both physical and mental. MA's physical effects: In terms of negative physical effects, cardiac problems, skin infections, sexually transmitted (and injection-related) diseases as well as meth mouth are described. MA's mental effects: In terms of mental consequences, two recently published Canadian studies revealing high rates of depression symptoms and of sustained psychotic symptoms in a subgroup of MA users are presented. Studies reporting various cognitive deficits in MA user are also reviewed, including reports of high prevalence of childhood attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder diagnoses among adult MA users. Furthermore, MA abusers are documented as having been highly exposed to trauma in their lives, with many presenting with post-traumatic stress disorder criteria. This manuscript also explores the reasons behind the forensic profiles of individuals using MA, particularly the increased tendency toward violent acts, the high incarceration rates of the homeless users and the high percentage of individuals diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder reported in studies. In terms of user profiles, various methods of ingestion, frequency of use as well as combination with other drugs are described, with a special focus on the frequent polysubstance abuse found in MA users and the reality of bingers. TREATMENT: This manuscript describes specific treatments designed for stimulant users such as MA abusers, namely the MATRIX program, as well as modifications piloted for those with comorbid depression. Pharmacological treatments, as well as antioxidant supplements, are also discussed although they have not yielded positive results with humans to date. Overall, our goal in this manuscript is to highlight the complexity of the difficulties faced by MA users as well as the limited ability of currently available treatments to address the multiple needs associated with this complexity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
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".