Characteristics of Opioid-Using Pregnant Women Who Accept or Refuse Participation in a Clinical Trial: Screening Results from the MOTHER Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although concerns arise about the generalizability of results from Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), few studies systematically examine this issue. OBJECTIVES: This study compared the characteristics of 427 opioid-using pregnant women who did (n = 208) and did not consent (n = 219) to enrollment in a multicenter clinical trial of agonist medications (i.e., the MOTHER study). METHODS: Logistic regression models were used to compare consenters and non-consenters to examine the effect of screening variables on the likelihood of consenting. RESULTS: Of nine characteristics examined, most differences did not reach statistical significance. Consenting participants were less likely than non-consenting women to be currently enrolled in a methadone maintenance program (74.5% vs. 84.5%, p =.01). CONCLUSION AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: These data show that the recruited sample of drug-dependent pregnant women enrolled in an intensive RCT is representative of the larger population of treated opioid-dependent patients and supports the generalizability of randomized controlled trials in this population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".