MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200248031 · doi:10.1016/j.psycom.2021.100018

The drug liking and craving questionnaire (DLCQ) to evaluate addiction risk for ketamine and esketamine

2021· article· en· W4200248031 on OpenAlexaff
Jay Ching-Chieh Wang, Atul Khullar, Roger S. McIntyre, Jennifer Swainson

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatry Research Communications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBrain and Cognition Discovery FoundationUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of AlbertaRoyal Columbian Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAddictionKetamineCravingPsychiatryPsychologyDrugMedicineClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ketamine and esketamine (SPRAVATO) are rapid acting antidepressants that have gained evidence and popularity in recent years in treating depression, and are under investigation for other psychiatric indications. Ketamine is a potential drug of abuse and the addiction potential of these medications has been repeatedly cautioned in the psychiatric literature. However, no studies have included a systematic evaluation of addiction potential in their research so risk of this harm remains theoretically and has not been quantified to place in properly in a risk/benefit perspective. There is currently no easily accessible and ready to use tool for this purpose, which poses a barrier to including measures of addiction potential in ketamine and esketamine research. Based on review of the literature and a recently suggested comprehensive Ketamine Side Effect Tool (KSET), as well as the United States Food and Drug Administration recommendations for evaluation addictive potential of a drug, we created a simple, patient rated visual analog scale specifically for assessing ketamine/esketamine drug likeability, cravings and temptation to misuse. While this scale is not validated, in the absence of other accessible tools, use of this questionnaire would provide researchers and clinicians a simple and easy to use tool to begin monitoring addictive potential in patients taking ketamine or esketamine, and better inform future research, clinical practice and publicy policy regarding these substances.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.366 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatry Research CommunicationsSame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207