A comparison of opioid use between WCB recipients and other Manitobans for knee, shoulder, back and carpal tunnel release procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study's objectives were to evaluate whether WCB claimants with conditions requiring certain surgical procedures are more likely to be prescribed outpatient opioids than other Manitobans and whether those prescribed opioids are more likely to still be on opioid medications 6 months post procedure. METHODS: We compared 7,246 WCB claims for a number of surgical procedures to 65,032 similar procedures performed in other Manitobans. Logistic regression was used to explore the association between being a WCB claimant and being prescribed opioids, while controlling for type of surgical procedure and other potential confounders. RESULTS: WCB claimants were more likely than other Manitobans to be prescribed opioids (adjusted OR 1.38; 95%CI 1.30-1.47). Amongst those prescribed opioids, the odds of being still on opioids 6 months post-procedure were not significantly elevated for WCB claimants (adjusted OR 1.09 95%CI 0.97-1.23). CONCLUSIONS: WCB claimants are prescribed opioids more often than non-claimants for similar procedures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".