MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050389350 · doi:10.2105/ajph.2014.301966

Determinants of Increased Opioid-Related Mortality in the United States and Canada, 1990–2013: A Systematic Review

2014· review· en· W2050389350 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nicholas B. King, Véronique Fraser, Constantina Boikos, Robin Richardson, Sam Harper

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsObservational studyConfoundingMedicinePsychological interventionOpioidDemographyPopulationGerontologyEnvironmental healthPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We review evidence of determinants contributing to increased opioid-related mortality in the United States and Canada between 1990 and 2013. We identified 17 determinants of opioid-related mortality and mortality increases that we classified into 3 categories: prescriber behavior, user behavior and characteristics, and environmental and systemic determinants. These determinants operate independently but interact in complex ways that vary according to geography and population, making generalization from single studies inadvisable. Researchers in this area face significant methodological difficulties; most of the studies in our review were ecological or observational and lacked control groups or adjustment for confounding factors; thus, causal inferences are difficult. Preventing additional opioid-related mortality will likely require interventions that address multiple determinants and are tailored to specific locations and populations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0120.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations315
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Public HealthSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207