MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754202022 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v9n11p40

Retrospective Analyses of High-risk NPS: Integrative Analyses of PubMed, Drug Fora, and the Surface Web

2017· article· en· W2754202022 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ahmed Al-Imam

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMDMAHeroinMescalineMedicinePoison controlEnvironmental healthInjury preventionSuicide preventionDrugOccupational safety and healthIncidence (geometry)Designer drugForensic toxicologyHallucinogenPsychiatryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Novel psychoactive substances (NPS) can be classified based on their safety for use into low-risk and high-risk. High-risk NPS can be either lethal or poisonous. Fatalities can be either pharmacological or behavioural-induced, including suicide and homicide.MATERIALS & METHODS: Observational analysis, including retrospective, were implemented across; Google Trends, PubMed/MedLine database; Drug Fora, and the surface web. The aim was to collect data in relation to incidents of intoxication and fatalities caused by forty-seven (47) of the most popular NPS and to infer the high-risk (hazardous) substances. Geo-mapping was also applicable. Inferential analyses were also carried out to deduct data on the different age grouping of (ab)users.RESULTS: Among the most popular NPS substances, nearly half of them were labelled as high-risk due to their relatively high incidence of intoxications and deaths. The substances included; DMA/DOX, MXE, Mescaline, Methylone, Crack, GHB, Benzodiazepines, NBOMe, 2C-B, DMT, Stimulants RCs, Shrooms, Ketamine, Opioids, Heroin, Meth, Speed, LSD, MDMA, and Cocaine. Many of these substances were either psychedelic or dissociative substance. Geo-mapping of use indicated that the top ten contributing countries were; Australia, Canada, United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland, Norway, Netherlands, Switzerland, and Estonia. The contribution of the Middle East was insignificant, although data have regularly been noticed originating from Israel, Iran, and Turkey.CONCLUSION: In this study, an unconventional inferential method is suggested for analysis of high-risk NPS; it is based on cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of data. It relies primarily on data from; the surface web, Google Trends, PubMed/Medline database, and drug fora. This method is not only descriptive but also inferential for age and gender among (ab)users of a diverse array of high-risk NPS substances.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0290.039
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.381 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicForensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisFrench-language works237,207