Treatment and rehabilitation concepts for patients with addiction and concurrent disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Background: Addiction and concurrent disorders give rise to a major burden of disease in both North America and Europe. However, these two continents have some fundamental differences in regards to the health care system and its funding as well as the types of vulnerable subpopulations to serve. For example, while emergency rooms are often the only available care for patients in the US and Canada due to financial barriers or structural deficits, stepped care approaches and separate rehabilitation systems are more commonplace in Europe. These differences can be observed not only on a transatlantic but also on an intra-European level. These differing attitudes and policies impact on treatment paradigms such as harm reduction, abstinence-based or opioid maintenance treatments etc. Structural components and clinical pathways lead to dissimilarities in access to care services such as detoxification, rehabilitation and community services. The role of primary care as an important treatment interface is much more recognized in Europe. While innovations are ongoing and scientific progress has been made in the treatment of concurrent disorders in recent years, implementing these findings into “real-world practice” has been insufficient so far.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".