MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789483059 · doi:10.1097/jom.0000000000001311

Prescription Dispensing Patterns Before and After a Workers’ Compensation Claim

2018· article· en· W2789483059 on OpenAlexafffund
Nancy Carnide, Sheilah Hogg‐Johnson, Andrea D Furlan, Pierre Côté, Mieke Koehoorn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityToronto Public Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionMuscle relaxantNonsteroidalInjury preventionPoison controlEmergency medicineOccupational safety and healthAnesthesiaPhysical therapyInternal medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Compare prescription dispensing before and after a work-related low back injury. METHODS: Descriptive analyses were used to describe opioid, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), and skeletal muscle relaxant (SMR) dispensing 1 year pre- and post-injury among 97,124 workers in British Columbia with new workers' compensation low back claims from 1998 to 2009. RESULTS: Before injury, 19.7%, 21.2%, and 6.3% were dispensed opioids, NSAIDs, and SMRs, respectively, increasing to 39.0%, 50.2%, and 28.4% after. Median time to first post-injury prescription was less than a week. Dispensing was stable pre-injury, followed by a sharp increase within 8 weeks post-injury. Dispensing dropped thereafter, but remained elevated nearly a year post-injury, an increase attributable to less than 2% of claimants. CONCLUSION: These drug classes are commonly dispensed, particularly shortly after injury and dispensing is of short duration for most, though a small subgroup receives prolonged courses.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207