Sex Differences in Dose Escalation and Overdose Death during Chronic Opioid Therapy: A Population-Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of opioids for noncancer pain is widespread, and more than 16,000 die of opioid-related causes in the United States annually. The patients at greatest risk of death are those receiving high doses of opioids. Whether sex influences the risk of dose escalation or opioid-related mortality is unknown. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cohort study using healthcare records of 32,499 individuals aged 15 to 64 who commenced chronic opioid therapy for noncancer pain between April 1, 1997 and December 31, 2010 in Ontario, Canada. Patients were followed from their first opioid prescription until discontinuation of therapy, death from any cause or the end of the study period. Among patients receiving chronic opioid therapy, 589 (1.8%) escalated to high dose therapy and n = 59 (0.2%) died of opioid-related causes while on treatment. After multivariable adjustment, men were more likely than women to escalate to high-dose opioid therapy (adjusted hazard ratio 1.44; 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.70) and twice as likely to die of opioid-related causes (adjusted hazard ratio 2.04; 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 3.53). These associations were maintained in a secondary analysis of 285,520 individuals receiving any opioid regardless of the duration of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Men are at higher risk than women for escalation to high-dose opioid therapy and death from opioid-related causes. Both outcomes were more common than anticipated.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".