MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2170193260

Predictors of treatment retention in a major methadone maintenance treatment program in iran: a survival analysis.

2014· article· en· W2170193260 on OpenAlexaff
Tahereh Pashaei, Maryam Moeeni, Babak Roshanaei Moghdam, Hassan Heydari, Nigel E. Turner, Emran Mohammad Razaghi

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethadoneMedicineMethadone maintenanceAddictionComorbidityRetention ratePsychiatryCohortLogistic regressionSurvival analysisAkaike information criterionInternal medicineStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To identify correlates related to retention time of a cohort study of the opioid-dependent patients participating in the Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) program offered by a major addiction treatment clinic in Tehran, Iran between April 2007 and March 2011. METHODS: Several parametric Survival models assuming Weibull, Log-normal and Log-logistic distributions were compared to search for association between covariates and risk of relapse and dropping out of treatment among 198 patient participants. RESULTS: According to Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Log-normal model had the best fitting. Estimates of this model indicated that increase in average methadone dosage was associated with longer retention time. Correlates associated with shorter retention time were suffering from mental disorders, using stimulant drugs, being poly-substance dependents and having prior treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this study provide support for giving more attention to patients who are poly-substance or stimulant-drug dependents, have non-substance psychiatric comorbidity and the ones with addiction treatment history. Independent of patient characteristics, retention improved as the dose of methadone increased.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→