Concordance of self-reported drug use and saliva drug tests in a sample of emergency department patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the concordance of self-reports of cannabis, cocaine and amphetamines, and the utility of these, with a saliva point of collection drug test, the DrugWipe 5+, in an emergency department (ED) setting. METHODS: A random sample of people admitted to either of two emergency departments at hospitals in British Columbia, Canada were asked to participate in an interview on their substance use and provide a saliva test for detection of drugs. ANALYSES: Concordance of self-reports and drug tests were calculated. Prior DrugWipe 5+ sensitivity and specificity estimates were compared against a gold standard of mass spectrometry and chromatography (MS/GC). This was used as a basis to assess the truthfulness of self-reports for each drug. RESULTS: Of the 1584 patients approached 1190 agreed to participate, a response rate of 75.1%. For cannabis, among those who acknowledged use only 21.1% had a positive test and 2.1% of those who reported no use had a positive test. For cocaine and amphetamines respectively, 50.0% and 57.1% tested positive among those reporting use, while 2.1% and 1.3%, respectively reported no use and tested positive. Self-reports of cannabis and amphetamines use appear more truthful than self-reports of cocaine use.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".