MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309314180 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1046649

Cannabis use and opioid relapse: An exploratory survival analysis of prospectively collected data

2022· article· en· W4309314180 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Leen Naji, Tea Rosic, Nitika Sanger, Brittany B. Dennis, Alannah Hillmer, Jacqueline Hudson, Andrew Worster, James Paul, David C. Marsh, Lehana Thabane, Zainab Samaan

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonNOSM UniversityUniversity of OttawaLaurentian UniversityMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOpioidCannabisMedicineExploratory analysisPsychiatryPsychologyPharmacologyInternal medicineData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance It is known that only minority of patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) receive treatment, of which only a fraction successfully complete treatment as intended. Factors associated with poor treatment outcomes remain unclear, and there is emerging but conflicting evidence that cannabis use may mitigate opioid use. Objective To analyze predictors of relapse amongst patients receiving buprenorphine-naloxone for OUD and identify the association between cannabis use and time to relapse. Design Data were prospectively collected between May 2018 and October 2020, and patients were followed for 12 months. Setting Thirty-one outpatient opioid agonist treatment clinics across Ontario, Canada. Participants All patients 16 years of age or older receiving buprenorphine-naloxone for OUD who had a urine toxicology screen negative for opioids at baseline were eligible for inclusion. Of the 488 patients consecutively sampled, 466 were included. Exposure Cannabis use. Main outcome and measure Relapse to opioid use assessed using urine toxicology screens. We employed a multivariable Cox-proportional hazard model for our analyses. Results We found that cannabis use was not protective against relapse [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78, 1.36, p = 0.84]. We found that participants who have been in treatment for at least two years had a 44% decrease in the hazard of relapse compared to those in treatment for less than a year (HR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34, 0.92, p = 0.021). We also found that the hazard of relapse was 2.6 times higher for participants who were intravenous drug users (HR = 2.61, 95% CI: 1.74, 3.91, p < 0.001), and that for every 1mg increase in the participants’ buprenorphine-naloxone dose, the hazard of relapse is 2% greater (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.03, p < 0.001). Conclusion Our analysis failed to show cannabis to be protective against relapse to opioid use in patients receiving buprenorphine-naloxone for OUD. We identified that individuals who inject drugs, are on higher doses of buprenorphine-naloxone, or have been in treatment for less than two years have a higher hazard for relapse. The presence of such factors may thus warrant closer patient follow-up and more stringent treatment protocols to mitigate risk of relapse and potential overdose.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207