MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989482753 · doi:10.1037/a0021741

Drug use during pregnancy: Validating the Drug Abuse Screening Test against physiological measures.

2010· article· en· W1989482753 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology of Addictive Behaviors · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsDrugSubstance abusePopulationPregnancyMedicineDrug userTest (biology)Substance Abuse DetectionPsychiatryPsychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the ability of the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10) to identify prenatal drug use using hair and urine samples as criterion variables. In addition, this study was the first to use "best practices," such as anonymity, ACASI technology, and a written screener, to facilitate disclosure in this vulnerable population. 300 low-income, post-partum women (90.3% African-American) were recruited from their hospital rooms after giving birth. Participation involved (a) completing a computerized assessment battery that contained the DAST-10 and (b) providing urine and hair samples. Twenty-four percent of the sample had a positive drug screen. The sensitivity of the DAST-10 was only .47. Nineteen percent of the sample had a positive toxicology screen but denied drug use on the DAST-10. Findings suggest that brief drug use screeners may have limited utility for pregnant women and that efforts to facilitate disclosure via reassurance and anonymity are unlikely to be sufficient in this population.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.277 · 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