MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091557570 · doi:10.1186/1477-7517-6-19

Harm reduction in hospitals: is it time?

2009· article· en· W2091557570 on OpenAlexaff
Beth Rachlis, Thomas Kerr, Julio Montaner, Evan Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueHarm Reduction Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth psychologyHarm reductionSocial policyReduction (mathematics)HarmPublic healthPsychologyMedicineSocial psychologyCriminologyNursingPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among persons who inject drugs (IDU), illicit drug use often occurs in hospitals and contributes to patient expulsion and/or high rates of leaving against medical advice (AMA) when withdrawal is inadequately managed. Resultant disruptions in medical care may increase the likelihood of several harms including drug resistance to antibiotics as well as costly readmissions and increased patient morbidity. In this context, there remains a clear need for the evaluation of harm reduction strategies versus abstinence-based strategies with respect to addressing ongoing issues related to substance use among addicted hospitalized patients. While hospitalization can be used to stabilize addicted patients as they recover from their acute illness and help them to achieve abstinence, patients unable to maintain abstinence should not be penalized for failing to do so at the expense of their health. This article describes harm reduction activities within hospitals and areas for future investigation.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0110.015
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0110.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.003

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations50
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarm Reduction JournalSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207