MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131979517 · doi:10.2217/pmt.11.59

What to do about Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain? A Perspective from Australia

2011· article· en· W2131979517 on OpenAlex
Paul Rolan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Management · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReimbursementHarmChronic painGuidelineHealth careOpioidScientific evidencePsychiatryIntensive care medicineLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ISSN 1758-1869 10.2217/PMT.11.59 © 2011 Future Medicine Ltd Pain Manage. (2011) 1(6), 495–497 Many countries in the developed world are awash with opioid overuse, misuse and opioid-related deaths, which have paralleled the increasing medical use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain [1]. This is despite growing concern over the efficacy of these drugs in long-term management. To attempt to reduce the harm associated with opioids but to ensure the continued availability for patient benefit, multiple attempts to develop guidelines, improve regulation and training have recently been attempted or are in progress [2,101,102]. However, unlike other disease areas where the issues are purely medical and hence in principle addressable by guidelines, the issues around appropriate opioid use and misuse go beyond the strictly medical and include the psychological, sociological, legal and regulatory. Hence strategies extending beyond guideline development are likely to be necessary. Given these multiple overlapping areas, it is likely that any solution will not be directly translatable into another healthcare environment although some individual points may be common across jurisdictions. In Australia, our healthcare environment has many similarities with those in western Europe and in Canada being largely based on the public sector with universal insurance and medication reimbursement to some degree. However there are some initiatives and systems unique to Australia, which may put us in a stronger position to find the right balance and methods to achieve Quality Use of Medicines for this difficult class of treatments. Australia is unique in having a National Medicines Policy [103]. This was initially launched in 1999 with the objective to improve positive health outcomes for all Australians through their access to and wise use of medicines. The chair of the eightmember committee, which is responsible for policy development, sits on an executive group which reports directly to the Federal Health Minister. This gives a remarkably short path for an advisory group to access the highest levels of government so that policy recommendations can be actioned. The National Medicines Policy is currently developing a policy on opioid use for chronic noncancer pain. It is reasonable to anticipate that recommendations made will be translated into action. The second unique structural component to our healthcare system is NPS, formerly known as the National Prescribing

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.285 · 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