MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317868073 · doi:10.1002/ejp.2082

Face validity of the <scp>ICD</scp>‐10 criteria of substance abuse and dependence for patients prescribed cannabis‐based medicines for chronic pain—A survey of pain medicine physicians in Canada, Germany and Israel

2023· article· en· W4317868073 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sören Lauff, Frank Petzke, Silviu Brill, Leonie Schouten, Mary‐Ann Fitzcharles, John X. Pereira, Winfried Häuser

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Pain · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCannabisChronic painMedicineContext (archaeology)Cannabis DependencePsychiatrySubstance abuseFamily medicineMedical cannabis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A major concern with cannabis-based medicines (CbM) and medical cannabis (MC) is the risk of abuse and dependence. The face validity of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) criteria for cannabis dependence in patients prescribed CbM for chronic pain has not been assessed. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Physicians from Canada, Germany and Israel were recruited via the mailing lists of national pain societies. To be eligible, physicians had to have prescribed CbM for chronic pain treatment in the past 12 months. Participants were asked to rate the appropriateness of items adapted from the substance use module of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Version 3.0 to assess dependence in the context of chronic pain treatment with CbM and the appropriateness of two additional items. In case of disagreement, participants were asked to give reasons. Furthermore, they were asked to suggest potential additional criteria. RESULTS: On average 69.0% of 178 participating physicians indicated agreement with the appropriateness of the ICD-10 criteria, while 20.6% indicated disagreement. The highest disagreement rate was observed for the item on repeated use despite legal problems (35.4% disagreement or strong disagreement). Reasons for disagreement were summarized into six content categories using qualitative methods of analysis. Additional criteria suggested by participants were summarized into 10 content categories. CONCLUSIONS: A collaboration of psychiatrists and pain physicians is required to define criteria and develop instruments to capture abuse and dependence of CbM in chronic pain patients. SIGNIFICANCE: Sixty-nine per cent of 178 pain medicine physicians in Canada, Germany and Israel who participated in a survey on the appropriateness of the ICD-10 criteria for cannabis abuse and dependence for patients prescribed cannabis-derived products for chronic pain assessed the criteria as appropriate, whereas 20.6% deemed the criteria as not appropriate.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.290
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of PainSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207