MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045130304 · doi:10.1080/08897077.2020.1784363

Covid-19 and Persons with Substance Use Disorders: Inequities and Mitigation Strategies

2020· article· en· W3045130304 on OpenAlexaff
Osnat C. Melamed, Tanya S. Hauck, Leslie Buckley, Peter Selby, Benoit H. Mulsant

Bibliographic record

VenueSubstance Abuse · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicHarmPublic healthSubstance useHealth careCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicinePsychiatrySubstance abusePopulationEnvironmental healthPsychologyPolitical scienceNursingDiseaseSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately disrupts the daily lives of marginalized populations. Persons with substance use disorders are a particularly vulnerable population because of their unique social and health care needs. They face significant harm from both the pandemic itself and its social and economic consequences, including marginalization in health care and social systems. Hence, we discuss: (1) why persons with substance use disorders are at increased risk for infection with COVID-19 and a severe illness course; (2) anticipated adverse consequences of COVID-19 in persons with substance use disorders; (3) challenges to health care delivery and substance use treatment programs during and after the COVID-19 pandemic; and (4) the potential impact on clinical research in substance use disorders. We offer recommendations for clinical, public health, and social policies to mitigate these challenges and to prevent negative 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations117
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSubstance AbuseSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207