MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376643217 · doi:10.1097/yco.0000000000000881

Seeking order in patterns of polysubstance use

2023· review· en· W4376643217 on OpenAlexaff
Jason P. Connor, Janni Leung, Gary Chan, Daniel Stjepanović

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Psychiatry · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Centre on Substance Use
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolysubstance dependenceHarmMedicineCannabisPsychological interventionSubstance usePsychiatryPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review provides an overview of recent developments in understanding polysubstance use patterns across the lifespan, and advances made in the prevention and treatment of harm arising from polysubstance use. RECENT FINDINGS: A comprehensive understanding of the patterns of polysubstance use is hampered by heterogeneity across study methods and types of drugs measured. Use of statistical techniques such as latent class analysis has aided in overcoming this limitation, identifying common patterns or classes of polysubstance use. These typically include, with decreasing prevalence, (1) Alcohol use only; (2) Alcohol and Tobacco; (3) Alcohol, Tobacco, and Cannabis; and finally (4) a low prevalence, Extended Range cluster that includes other illicit drugs, New Psychoactive Substances (NPS), and nonmedical prescription medications. SUMMARY: Across studies, there are commonalities present in clusters of substances used. Future work that integrates novel measures of polysubstance use and leverages advances in drug monitoring, statistical analysis and neuroimaging will improve our understanding of how and why drugs are combined, and more rapidly identify emerging trends in multiple substance use. Polysubstance use is prevalent but there is a paucity of research exploring effective treatments and interventions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.187
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PsychiatrySame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207