Evaluation of state opioid substitution treatment program in Georgia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Evaluation of State Opioid Substitution Treatment OST (methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone- Addnok-N) program in Georgia and optimization of the routine measurement instrument. Patients were recruited from 4 Tbilisi and 5 regional State Programs in May-October 2013. 2 structured self-questionnaires (one - anonymous for sensitive questions) were developed for patients to assess demographics, retention in treatment, mean drug dose, HIV and Hepatitis C and B status, illicit drug and alcohol use, social activities, crime involvement, health status, HIV risk behavior, treatment compliance and satisfaction. 608 patients (7 females) were surveyed (512 - on Methadone, 96 - on buprenorphine/naloxone). 337 (1 female) patients completed an anonymous questionnaire. Mean age - 39.43±8.7 (21-65 years). 10 (1.64%) respondents were HIV positive; 448 (73.68%) - HCV+ and 24 (3.95%) - HBV+; average methadone dose - 39.27±22.2mg; buprenorphine/naloxone - 7.4±3.6 mg; 64 (40%) of employed began working while in program; 365 (60%) have been in treatment for less than 1 year, and 146 (24%) - for 1-3 years vs. 258 (51%) out of 506 patients surveyed in 2011. 494 (81.2%) reported improvement of social status and 508 (83.5%) - of health status. 305 (90.5%) out of 337 reported no- and 30 (8.9%) - reduction of criminal activity. 467 (76.81%) patients attended individual and 200 (32.9%)-group psychotherapy sessions with various frequencies. The common adverse events: sleep disturbances - 48.84%; weakness - 50.82%; mood disturbances - 42.44%, and heaviness - 36.35%. 257 (46%) reported using of alcohol; 16 - opioids; 29 - sedative/hypnotics; 8 - marijuana and 1 - ATS past 30 days; 55 - drug injection and 11 - sharing of any injection equipment past 6 months. State OST program is effective in Georgia in terms of reduction of illegal drug use, injection risk behavior and criminal activity, and on the other hand - improving of social activity and general health. Treatment retention is less as compared with 2011 survey.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".