MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077009331 · doi:10.1520/jfs2003401

Use of MDA (The "Love Drug") and Methamphetamine in Toronto by Unsuspecting Users of Ecstasy (MDMA)

2004· article· en· W2077009331 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kathryn S. Kalasinsky, J. Hugel, SJ Kish

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthHealth CanadaOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcstasyMDMAMethamphetamineMedical examinerPoison controlDesigner drugMephedroneDrugSuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychiatryInjury preventionCriminologyMedical emergencyMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has recently been reported that purity of illicit tablets of ecstasy (MDMA) is now high. Our objective was to confirm whether hair of drug users, who request only ecstasy from their supplier, contains MDMA in the absence of other drugs. GC-MS analysis of scalp hair segments disclosed the presence of MDMA in 19 of 21 subjects and amphetamine/methamphetamine in eight subjects. Surprisingly, seven subjects had hair levels of the MDMA metabolite, MDA, equal to or greater than those of MDMA, suggesting use of MDA in addition to that of MDMA. These amphetamine derivatives might be included by clandestine laboratories to enhance effects of the drug cocktail or because of a perception that MDA synthesis might be simpler than that of MDMA. Drug users and investigators examining possible brain neurotoxic effects of MDMA need to consider that "ecstasy" tablets can contain MDA and methamphetamine despite no demand for the 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)0.000
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 score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations42
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicForensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisFrench-language works237,207