MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041677321 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013672

Primary care versus specialty care management of opioid use disorder

2020· article· en· W3041677321 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle Perry, Christina Korownyk, Joey Ton, Jessica Kirkwood, Scott Garrison

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsCollege of Family Physicians of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecialtyPrimary careMedicineOpioid use disorderIntervention (counseling)Protocol (science)OpioidIntensive care medicineFamily medicineNursingAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To determine whether treatment of OUD in primary care as compared to the traditional specialty care setting results in equivalent or improved outcomes for retention in treatment, reduction in opioid use, and other patient‐oriented outcomes.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.015
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1010.006

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207