MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007122798 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20190112

Opioid losses in terms of dosage and value, January 2012 to September 2017: a retrospective analysis of Health Canada data

2020· article· en· W3007122798 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mark Fan, Dorothy Tscheng, Michael A. Hamilton, Patricia Trbovich

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthNorth York General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydromorphoneOxycodoneFentanylCodeineMorphineMedicinePharmacyOpioidEmergency medicineAnesthesiaInternal medicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Canadian health care facilities must report losses or thefts of opioids to Health Canada. To broaden the understanding of opioid loss in Canada, we analyzed data describing these losses to estimate the amount of opioid lost, estimate the wholesale and street value, compare the distribution of loss types between facility types and compare loss trends. METHODS: We analyzed Health Canada records of losses of codeine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, morphine and oxycodone reported by Canadian facilities from January 2012 to September 2017. We conducted descriptive analyses of the opioid losses by calculating milligrams of drug lost, oral morphine equivalents, daily defined doses, approximate wholesale value and approximate street value, and compared loss trends when counted by incidents, dosage units or milligrams. RESULTS: There were 64 963 reports of loss of codeine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, morphine or oxycodone over the study period. Over 112 kg of opioids were lost, an estimated $8.7 million in wholesale cost and $136 million in street value. The dominant loss categories varied by facility type: armed robbery (30.9 kg [31.1%]) for community pharmacies, unexplained losses (6.4 kg [55.8%]) for companies and pilferage (0.8 kg [57.4%]) for hospitals. Loss trends over the study period varied by reporting metric and facility type: community pharmacy losses increased when measured by dosage units and incidents of loss, and remained stable when measured by milligrams; hospital losses increased when measured by milligrams and showed no clear trend when measured by dosage units and incidents of loss. Companies showed no clear loss trend with any reporting metric. INTERPRETATION: Large quantities of opioids were lost or stolen from community pharmacies, companies and hospitals over the study period, and these losses are valued in millions of dollars. Publishing milligrams of opioids lost annually alongside metrics such as dosage units and incidents of loss would help characterize the economic cost and the magnitude of drug losses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207