MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069164404 · doi:10.1080/02791072.2013.825029

Non-Medical Use of Psychotropic Prescription Drugs Among Adolescents in Substance Use Treatment

2013· article· en· W2069164404 on OpenAlexaff
Tunde Apantaku-Olajide, Bobby P. Smyth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychoactive Drugs · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityHorizon Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical prescriptionMedicinePsychiatrySubstance abusePrescription Drug MisuseSedativeStimulantPolysubstance dependenceOpioidPharmacologyOpioid use disorderInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about the extent of non-medical use of prescription drugs among European adolescents with substance use disorders. This cross-sectional study examined non-medical use of seven categories of psychotropic prescription drugs (opioid analgesics, ADHD stimulant, sleeping, sedative/anxiolytic, antipsychotic, antidepressant, and anabolic steroid medications) in a clinical sample of Irish adolescents with substance use disorders. Of the 85 adolescents (aged 13-18 years) invited to participate, 65 adolescents (M = 16.3 years, SD = 1.3) took part (response: 74%). Among respondents, 68% reported lifetime non-medical use of any of the prescription drugs; sedative/anxiolytic (62%) and sleeping medications (43%) were more commonly abused. The most frequently reported motives for abuse were "seeking high or buzz" (79%), "having good time" (63%), and "relief from boredom" (56%). Sharing among friends and street-level drug markets were the most readily available sources. Innovative solutions of control measures and intervention are required to address the abuse of prescription drugs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychoactive DrugsSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207