MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2175392550 · doi:10.2466/18.pr0.117c23z9

Self-Reports of Illegal Activity, SCL-90–R Personality Scales, and Urine Tests in Methadone Patients

2015· article· en· W2175392550 on OpenAlexaff
Zack Z. Cernovsky, Gamal Sadek, Simon Chiu

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethadoneClinical psychologyPsychologyUrinePsychopathologyPsychiatryAnxietyPersonalityDepression (economics)PsychometricsMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In routine work, medical staff usually has to rely on the patient's self-reports of criminal activity and of recent involvement in fights. This study examines how these self-reports of crime correlate with the patients' routine urine tests and personality measures. Pearson correlations of these self-reports by 55 methadone patients (M age = 34.1 yr., SD = 9.1; 35 men, 20 women) were calculated to their urine screening tests (those for opiates, benzodiazepines, and cocaine) and to personality scores on the Symptom Checklist 90-Revised (SCL-90-R). Patients who reported being involved in recent illegal activities to obtain drugs had significantly higher scores on the SCL-90-R scale assessing obsessive-compulsive symptoms (r = .28) and had more frequent positive urine tests for cocaine (r = .35). Those who reported having engaged in fights within the last 12 mo. had higher scores on SCL-90-R measures of somatic complaints (r = .32), anxiety (r = .31), and depression (r = .29), and of overall psychopathology (r = .29), and they also had more often positive urine tests for cocaine (r = .28) than other patients. Studies on larger samples are needed to help clinicians to predict criminal or hostile behavior during methadone treatment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.296 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ReportsSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207