The impact of opioid prescription dose and duration during a Workers Compensation claim, on post‐claim continued opioid use: A retrospective population‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Workers Compensation Board (WCB) recipients are a group commonly prescribed opioids. METHODS: We explored factors influencing post-claim opioid dose and duration by linking data from 22,451 claims with the Manitoba Center for Population Health registry. RESULTS: On average, the WCB paid for 94.55% of opioids prescribed during a claim. The amount paid for by the WCB varied significantly by total opioids prescribed. The main predictors of high opioid dosage (120 + morphine equivalents (ME)/day) during the first year post-claim (logistic regression), and of longer post-claim opioid usage (survival analysis), included opioid dosage during the final month of the claim both paid for and not paid for by the WCB. CONCLUSIONS: Amongst low dose opioid claims, the WCB covers most opioids prescribed. Higher opioid dose WCB recipients are often prescribed opioids not covered by the WCB. Both opioids paid for and not paid for by the WCB are associated with post-claim opioid use.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".