Older Adults Prescribed Methadone: A Review of the Literature Across the Life Span from Opiate Initiation to Methadone Maintenance Treatment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professionals currently working with methadone patients are facing challenges with the rise of polydrug use, HIV and Hepatitis epidemics, and treating a large volume of individuals who are older than ever before, presenting for the first time in their 50's, 60's and 70's. There have been two literature reviews conducted on this older population, but they can only provide a snap-shot view on the later stage of life of this unique group. A longitudinal literature review of the long-term opiate abuser who has transitioned into opiate replacement therapy will provide depth and illustrate the complexity of interrelated factors that have been affected throughout their life span. This paper reviews the literature conducted on opiate addicts from their earlier stages of substance use to older adulthood where many have chosen to enter into a methadone maintenance program. The paper will also take a biopsychosocial approach when reviewing the literature because of how these three domains are deeply affected and interrelated with this population.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it