Associations of cannabis use, opioid use, and their combination with serious psychological distress among Ontario adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering the widespread use of cannabis and opioids, examining the use of cannabis, opioids and their combination with serious psychological distress (SPD) is important. A total of N = 12,358 adults participating in the Monitor surveillance study between 2014 and 2019 were included. Cannabis and opioid use reflected any use of the substances in the past 12 months. SPD was defined as having a score of 13 or more on the Kessler-6 questionnaire, a 6-item scale that includes feeling nervous, hopeless, restless or fidgety, sad or depressed. Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated from logistic regression models accounting for complex survey design and sociodemographic factors. Overall, 12.8% of the sample reported cannabis use only, 18% reported opioid use only, and 4.9% reported both cannabis and opioid use. Use of both cannabis and opioids was significantly associated with SPD in both women (OR = 4.24; 95% CI, 2.34 to 7.69), and in men (OR = 2.99; 95% CI, 1.56 to 5.73) compared to use of neither. The joint association of cannabis and opioids with SPD was additive. Addressing those who use both cannabis and opioids may help reduce the burden of SPD among adults in Ontario.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".