MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159815444

Opioid Prescribing after Surgery among Chronic Opioid users in Ontario: A Population-based Cohort Study

2019· dissertation· en· W3159815444 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Naheed Jivraj

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpioidMedicineChronic painCohortPharmacoepidemiologyAnesthesiaPopulationPsychiatryInternal medicinePharmacologyMedical prescriptionEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients who chronically use opioids may undergo surgery; it is unclear if surgery alters the trajectory of opioid consumption in these patients. We sought to determine if exposure to surgery is associated with opioid discontinuation among chronic users, and factors associated with opioid discontinuation after surgery. The study included 4,755 surgical and 14,265 matched non-surgical patients with chronic opioid use. After adjusting for patient characteristics, surgery was associated with an increased likelihood of opioid discontinuation (aHR: 1.34 95%CI: 1.27, 1.42). Among surgical patients, factors associated with a reduced odds of discontinuation included a mean preoperative opioid dose >90 morphine milligram equivalents (aOR: 0.39 95%CI:0.31, 0.49), preoperative oxycodone prescriptions (aOR: 0.74 95%CI:0.55, 0.98), and a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (aOR: 0.75 95%CI: 0.64, 0.88) or dementia (aOR: 0.58 95%CI: 0.37, 0.91). Further research is needed to evaluate interventions that can influence post-operative opioid discontinuation, particularly in high risk 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207