Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Addiction can occur with the repeated exposure of a biogenetically predisposed person to an addictive substance or behaviour. 2. In the patient with pain on opioid therapy, use the '4 Cs' to diagnose addiction. 3. Screening and risk stratification of all patients considered for opioid therapy is a key element of 'universal precautions' in pain management. 4. There are a number of established and new screening tools including the CAGE, Opioid Risk Tool and Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain, which can be utilized in the office setting. 5. There are a number of potential ambiguous drug-related behaviours that should trigger a re-evaluation by the clinician. 6. Treating the higher-risk patient with opioids requires more assessment, more structure and more monitoring. Written opioid prescribing agreements and urine drug testing can be helpful strategies. 7. Essential documentation includes the '6As': Analgesia, Activity, Adverse effects, Ambiguous drug behaviours, Affect and Adequate prescription information.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.013 |
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".