Change in Pain Status and Subsequent Opioid and Marijuana Use Among Long-Term Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated pain status change and associations with subsequent opioid/marijuana use among 1208 adult survivors of childhood cancer. Pain status and opioid/marijuana were self-reported at baseline and follow-up evaluation (mean interval = 4.2 years). Over time, 18.7% of survivors endorsed persistent/increasing significant pain; 4.8% and 9.0% reported having used opioids and marijuana at follow-up. Persistent/increased (vs none/decreased) pain, persistent/increased (vs none/decreased) anxiety, and lack of health insurance increased odds of subsequent opioid use by 7.69-fold (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.71 to 15.95), 2.55-fold (95% CI = 1.04 to 6.24), and 2.50-fold (95% CI = 1.07 to 5.82), respectively. Persistent/increased (vs none/decreased) depression increased odds of subsequent marijuana use by 2.64-fold (95% CI = 1.10 to 6.33).
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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".