Individualized Prospective Prediction of Opioid Use Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic relapsing disorder with a problematic pattern of opioid use, affecting nearly 27 million people worldwide. Machine learning (ML)-based prediction of OUD may lead to early detection and intervention. However, most ML prediction studies were not based on representative data sources and prospective validations, limiting their potential to predict future new cases. In the current study, we aimed to develop and prospectively validate an ML model that could predict individual OUD cases based on representative large-scale health data. Method We present an ensemble machine-learning model trained on a cross-linked Canadian administrative health data set from 2014 to 2018 ( n = 699,164), with validation of model-predicted OUD cases on a hold-out sample from 2014 to 2018 ( n = 174,791) and prospective prediction of OUD cases on a non-overlapping sample from 2019 ( n = 316,039). We used administrative records of OUD diagnosis for each subject based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. Results With 6409 OUD cases in 2019 (mean [SD], 45.34 [14.28], 3400 males), our model prospectively predicted OUD cases at a high accuracy (balanced accuracy, 86%, sensitivity, 93%; specificity 79%). In accord with prior findings, the top risk factors for OUD in this model were opioid use indicators and a history of other substance use disorders. Conclusion Our study presents an individualized prospective prediction of OUD cases by applying ML to large administrative health datasets. Such prospective predictions based on ML would be essential for potential future clinical applications in the early detection of OUD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".