Correlations of kratom (Mitragyna speciosa Korth.) use behavior and psychiatric conditions from a cross-sectional survey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Korth.) use has increased substantially over the past decade outside of its indigenous regions, especially for the self-treatment of psychiatric conditions. An anonymous, cross-sectional, online survey was completed by 4,945 people who use kratom (PWUK) between July 2019 and July 2020. A total of 2,296 respondents completed an extended survey that included clinical scales for measuring attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depressive and anxiety disorders. PWUK and met criteria for ADHD, PTSD, depressive or anxiety disorders were primarily middle-aged (31-50 years), employed, college-level educated, and reported greater concurrent or prior use of kratom with cannabis, cannabidiol, and benzodiazepines. For all psychiatric conditions, PWUK reported decreased depressive and anxious moods than before kratom use. Based on this self-report study, observational and other clinical studies are warranted for kratom. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".