Geospatial-Temporal and Demand Models for Opioid Admissions, Implications for Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: As the opioid epidemic continues, understanding the geospatial, temporal and demand patterns is important for policymakers to assign resources and interdict individual, organization, and country-level bad actors. Methods: GIS geospatial-temporal analysis, k-means cluster analysis, and extreme-gradient boosted random forests are used to evaluated ICD-10 F11 opioid-related admissions. The period of analysis was January 2016 through September 2018. Results: The analysis shows existing high-intensity areas in Chicago and New Jersey with emerging areas in Atlanta, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, and Las Vegas. Further, cluster analysis supports the current inflow from China through Mexico and Canada with another cluster in the Northeast likely associated with the Dominican flow. Explanatory models suggest that hospital overall workload and financial variables may be used for allocating opioid-related funds effectively, as the gradient-boosted random forest models accounted for 88% of the variability on a blinded test data set. Conclusions: Based on GIS analysis, the opioid epidemic is likely to spread or diffuse through the country, and interdiction efforts require demand-analysis such as that provided in this study to allocate scarce resources for supply-side and demand-side interdiction: prevention, treatment, and enforcement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".