Opioid use disorder and type 2 diabetes mellitus: Effect of participation in buprenorphine-naloxone substitution programs on glycemic control.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of buprenorphine-naloxone as opioid substitution therapy on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and opioid use disorder. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study and secondary data analysis. SETTING: Northwestern Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with diabetes receiving opioid substitution therapy, as well as patients with diabetes only, who live in 6 remote First Nations communities. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: values during a 2-year time period in the 2 groups. RESULTS: values in patients with diabetes who also received opioid substitution therapy, compared with patients with diabetes who were not being treated for opioid dependence, whose values rose by 0.02%. CONCLUSION: = .011) improvement in glycemic control when treated with buprenorphine-naloxone substitution therapy compared with other patients with diabetes. Treating opioid use disorder with buprenorphine-naloxone substitution therapy has an unintended positive effect on diabetes management.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".