A meta‐analysis of marijuana, cocaine and opiate toxicology study findings among homicide victims
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim To synthesize the results of marijuana, cocaine and opiate drug toxicology studies of homicide victims and examine variation in results across person and setting characteristics. Methods A meta-analysis of 18 independent studies identified from an extensive review of 239 published articles that met the inclusion criteria of reporting marijuana, cocaine and/or opiate toxicology test results for homicide victims. A total of 28 868 toxicology test results derived from 30 482 homicide victims across five countries were examined. Results On average, 6% of homicide victims tested positive for marijuana, 11% tested positive for cocaine, and 5% tested positive for opiates. The proportion of homicide victims testing positive for illicit drugs has increased over time. Age had a strong curvilinear relationship with toxicology test results, but gender differences were not apparent. Hispanic and African American homicide victims were more likely to test positive for cocaine; Caucasians were most likely to test positive for opiates. Cocaine use appeared to be related to increased risk of death from a firearm and was a greater risk factor for violent victimization in the United States than in Newfoundland and Scandinavia. Conclusion There are relatively few studies of illicit drug toxicology reports from homicide victims that allow for cross-cultural comparisons. This study provides a basis for comparing future local toxicology test results to estimates from existing research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".