MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153543895 · doi:10.1093/jat/30.3.202

Hydromorphone-Related Fatalities in Ontario

2006· article· en· W2153543895 on OpenAlexaffabout
H. Rachelle Wallage, J.-P. F. P. Palmentier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Analytical Toxicology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydromorphoneMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interpretation of drug intoxication in death investigations is based on the available published literature. In the case of hydromorphone, the literature is limited. This report serves to facilitate the evaluation of cases where hydromorphone may be implicated in a fatality through the examination of 251 hydromorphone-positive cases in the province of Ontario from 1985 to 2003. Thirty-three of these cases were selected for review in greater detail. In four cases in which hydromorphone was the sole drug detected and death was attributed to hydromorphone toxicity, concentrations ranged from 77 to 2684 ng/mL. Hydromorphone concentrations ranged from 21 to 441 ng/mL in 28 cases in which at least one other drug was detected. In five deaths attributed to natural causes, blood hydromorphone concentrations ranged from 75 to 423 ng/mL. The results of this study emphasize the importance of case specific information. Fatalities due to hydromorphone occurred at 51 ng/mL and greater; however, tolerant users of this drug, as seen in the deaths attributed to natural causes, may achieve incidental concentrations that would otherwise be considered fatal. Hydromorphone was detected and quantitated using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Analytical ToxicologySame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207