Sensitivity and specificity of administrative mortality data for identifying prescription opioid–related deaths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive systems for surveilling prescription opioid-related harms provide clear evidence that deaths from prescription opioids have increased dramatically in the United States. However, these harms are not systematically monitored in Canada. In light of a growing public health crisis, accessible, nationwide data sources to examine prescription opioid-related harms in Canada are needed. We sought to examine the performance of 5 algorithms to identify prescription opioid-related deaths from vital statistics data against data abstracted from the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario as a gold standard. METHODS: We identified all prescription opioid-related deaths from Ontario coroners' data that occurred between Jan. 31, 2003, and Dec. 31, 2010. We then used 5 different algorithms to identify prescription opioid-related deaths from vital statistics death data in 2010. We selected the algorithm with the highest sensitivity and a positive predictive value of more than 80% as the optimal algorithm for identifying prescription opioid-related deaths. RESULTS: Four of the 5 algorithms had positive predictive values of more than 80%. The algorithm with the highest sensitivity (75%) in 2010 improved slightly in its predictive performance from 2003 to 2010. INTERPRETATION: In the absence of specific systems for monitoring prescription opioid-related deaths in Canada, readily available national vital statistics data can be used to study prescription opioid-related mortality with considerable accuracy. Despite some limitations, these data may facilitate the implementation of national surveillance and monitoring strategies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".