Identifying the changing age distribution of opioid-related mortality with high-frequency data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Opioid-related mortality continues to rise across North America, and mortality rates have been further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study sought to provide an updated picture of trends of opioid-related mortality for Ontario, Canada between January 2003 and December 2020, in relation to age and sex. METHODS: Using mortality data from the Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario, we applied Bayesian Poisson regression to model age/sex mortality per 100,000 person-years, including random walks to flexibly capture age and time effects. Models were also used to explore how trends might continue into 2022, considering both pre- and post-COVID-19 courses. RESULTS: From 2003 to 2020, there were 11,633 opioid-related deaths in Ontario. A shift in the age distribution of mortality was observed, with the greatest mortality rates now among younger individuals. In 2003, mortality rates reached maximums at 5.5 deaths per 100,000 person-years (95% credible interval: 4.0-7.6) for males around age 44 and 2.2 deaths per 100,000 person-years (95% CI: 1.5-3.2) for females around age 51. As of 2020, rates have reached maximums at 67.2 deaths per 100,000 person-years (95% CI: 55.3-81.5) for males around age 35 and 16.8 deaths per 100,000 person-years (95% CI: 12.8-22.0) for females around age 37. Our models estimate that opioid-related mortality among the younger population will continue to grow, and that current conditions could lead to male mortality rates that are more than quadruple those of pre-pandemic estimations. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis may inform a refocusing of public health strategy for reducing rising rates of opioid-related mortality, including effectively reaching both older and younger males, as well as young females, with health and social supports such as treatment and harm reduction measures.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".