Characteristics of Methylphenidate Misuse in a University Student Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Methylphenidate (MPH) is a prescription stimulant drug with known abuse potential; however, little is known about its patterns of misuse or the characteristics of its abusers. METHODS: A sample of 50 university students reporting MPH misuse and 50 control subjects matched for age, sex, and ethnicity completed structured face-to-face interviews about their MPH and other drug use. For each substance ever used, they provided information regarding routes of administration and other substances ever coadministered, as well as details about the most recent administration. MPH users provided additional information about their reasons for use and, in 36 cases, about how they obtained the drug. RESULTS: Relative to control subjects, those who misused MPH were more likely to have used various other prescription and nonprescription stimulant drugs over their lifetime, and most MPH users reported mixing the drug with other psychoactive substances. Of the MPH sample, 70% reported recreational use of the drug, while 30% reported that MPH was used exclusively for study purposes. Relative to those using it exclusively for study, recreational users were more likely to report using MPH intranasally, as well as coadministering MPH with other substances. Most of those who reported their source of MPH obtained it from an acquaintance with a prescription. CONCLUSIONS: Those who misuse MPH are more likely than their peers to misuse various other substances, and MPH misuse frequently occurs in the context of simultaneous polydrug use. Because the primary supply of inappropriately used MPH appears to be prescribed users, efforts should be directed toward preventing its diversion.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".