MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124921888 · doi:10.1136/bmj.a2098

Characteristics and outcomes of doctors in a substance dependence monitoring programme in Canada: prospective descriptive study

2008· article· en· W2124921888 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. M Brewster, Inès Kaufmann, S. Hutchison, Cynthia H. MacWilliam

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsOntario Medical AssociationPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePopulationProspective cohort studyFamily medicineCohortSubstance usePsychiatryEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics at enrollment and outcomes of doctors in a substance dependence monitoring programme in Canada. DESIGN: Prospective descriptive study. SETTING: Provincial physician health programme, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: All 100 doctors consecutively admitted to a substance dependence monitoring programme and followed until completion of monitoring or on leaving the programme. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Relapse during long term monitoring for five years. RESULTS: Ninety per cent of the doctors enrolled on the programme were men, 66% were married or living with a partner, 44% had had previous treatment for substance dependence, and 36% had had previous psychiatric treatment. Smokers were over-represented compared with the general population of US doctors (38% v 5%). During the monitoring period 71% of participants had no known relapse. An additional 14% went on to complete the programme, after some form of relapse. In total, 85% of the doctors successfully completed the programme. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of doctors enrolled on the Ontario Physician Health Program for substance dependence, most were men who were dependent on alcohol or opioids. Smokers were over-represented compared with the general population of US doctors. Eighty five per cent successfully completed the programme.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations44
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207