Characterizing Durations of Heroin Abstinence in the California Civil Addict Program: Results From a 33-Year Observational Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In accordance with the chronic disease model of opioid dependence, cessation is often observed as a longitudinal process rather than a discrete endpoint. We aimed to characterize and identify predictors of periods of heroin abstinence in the natural history of recovery from opioid dependence. Data were collected on participants from California who were enrolled in the Civil Addict Program from 1962 onward by use of a natural history interview. Multivariate regression using proportional hazards frailty models was applied to identify independent predictors and correlates of repeated abstinence episode durations. Among 471 heroin-dependent males, 387 (82.2%) reported 932 abstinence episodes, 60.3% of which lasted at least 1 year. Multivariate analysis revealed several important findings. First, demographic factors such as age and ethnicity did not explain variation in durations of abstinence episodes. However, employment and lower drug use severity predicted longer episodes. Second, abstinence durations were longer following sustained treatment versus incarceration. Third, individuals with multiple abstinence episodes remained abstinent for longer durations in successive episodes. Finally, abstinence episodes initiated >10 and ≤20 years after first use lasted longer than others. Public policy facilitating engagement of opioid-dependent individuals in maintenance-oriented drug treatment and employment is recommended to achieve and sustain opioid abstinence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".