The opioid crisis in North America: facts and future lessons for Europe
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past two decades, opioid-related hospitalizations and deaths in North America have reached the level of a public health emergency. Initially, the epidemic of opioid misuse was largely driven by pharmaceutical companies and initiated by their spread of misinformation, which led physicians to engage in overzealous prescribing behaviour. This was followed by significant harms as deaths related to overdoses on prescription and illicit opioids rose steadily throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. This review examines the historical context of the opioid crisis in the United States and Canada, the role of physicians, the contributions of the pharmaceutical industry and the evolution of the epidemic in response to the introduction of highly potent synthetic opioids now recognized as the main culprits in opioid overdose and death. This article further explores the evidence surrounding the effectiveness of various treatment strategies and harm-reduction interventions designed to curtail the morbidity and mortality associated with opioid use. Finally, the magnitude of the opioid epidemic in North America is compared to that in European countries. This paper describes the differences in North American and European experiences with opioid overdose and the evidence-based approaches that can be implemented to reduce the mortality and morbidity linked to opioids while simultaneously ensuring adequate pain control for patients.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it