Cohort profile: development and characteristics of a retrospective cohort of individuals dispensed prescription opioids for non-cancer pain in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prescription opioids (POs) are widely prescribed for chronic non-cancer pain but are associated with several risks and limited long-term benefit. Large, linked data sources are needed to monitor their harmful effects. We developed and characterised a retrospective cohort of people dispensed POs. PARTICIPANTS: We used a large linked administrative database to create the Opioid Prescribing Evaluation and Research Activities cohort of individuals dispensed POs for non-cancer pain in British Columbia (BC), Canada (1996-2015). We created definitions to categorise episodes of PO use based on a review of the literature (acute, episodic, chronic), developed an algorithm for inferring clinical indication and assessed patterns of PO use across a range of characteristics. FINDINGS TO DATE: The current cohort includes 1.1 million individuals and 3.4 million PO episodes (estimated to capture 40%-50% of PO use in BC). The majority of episodes were acute (81%), with most prescribed for dental or surgical pain. Chronic use made up 3% of episodes but 88% of morphine equivalents (MEQ). Across the acute to episodic to chronic episode gradient, there was an increasing prevalence of higher potency POs (hydromorphone, oxycodone, fentanyl, morphine), long-acting formulations and chronic pain related indications (eg, back, neck, joint pain). Average daily dose (MEQ) was similar for acute/episodic but higher for chronic episodes. Approximately 7% of the cohort had a chronic episode and chronic pain was the characteristic most strongly associated with chronic PO use. Individuals initiating a chronic episode were also more likely to have higher social/material deprivation and previous experience with a mental health condition or a problem related to alcohol or opioid use. Overall, these findings suggest our episode definitions have face validity and also provide insight into characteristics of people initiating chronic PO therapy. FUTURE PLANS: The cohort will be refreshed every 2 years. Future analyses will explore the association between POs and adverse 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".