Characteristics of Methylphenidate Misuse in a University Student Sample
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.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it