Opium tincture for opioid substitution treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Opium tincture (OT) is widely used for opioid substitution treatment (OST) in Iran. Objectives To determine if OT is a safe and effective medication for OST. Methods Opium Trial was a multicenter, double‐blind, noninferiority randomized controlled trial, with 204 participants with opioid dependence in Iran. Participants were then randomized to OT or methadone arms with an allocation ratio of 1:1 and were followed for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was retention in treatment, compared between the two groups using both intention-To-Treat (ITT) and Per-Protocol (PP) analyses. Results A total of 70 participants (IT: 68.6%, PP: 69.3%) in methadone arm and 61 participants (ITT: 59.8%, PP: 60.4%) in OT arm remained in the treatment. The relative retention rate was 1.15 (0.97, 1.36) in both analyses in favour of methadone. A total of 46 out of 152 (30.3%) participants in OT arm and 83 out of 168 (49.4%) participants in methadone arm reported opioid use outside the treatment. The difference in these two proportions (OT - methadone) was 19%: (10%, 28%) in favour of OT. The proportion of patients with adverse events were not different between the two arms (P = 0.06). There was no serious AE in OT arm. Conclusions Opium tincture is a clinically effective and safe medication, but this study could not conclude if it was as equally effective as methadone in retaining participants in treatment, but it showed that OT was superior to methadone in reducing opioid use outside the treatment. Disclosure No significant relationships.
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".