Prevalence of opioid dependence in New South Wales, Australia, 2014–16: Indirect estimation from multiple data sources using a Bayesian approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To estimate the prevalence of, and number of unobserved people with opioid dependence by sex and age group in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. DESIGN: We applied a Bayesian statistical modelling approach to opioid agonist treatment records linked to adverse event rate data. We estimated prevalence from three types of adverse event separately: opioid mortality, opioid-poisoning hospitalizations and opioid-related charges. We extended the model and produced prevalence estimates from a 'multi-source' model based on all three types of adverse event data. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS: This study was conducted in NSW, Australia, 2014-16 using data from the Opioid Agonist Treatment and Safety (OATS) study, which included all people who had received treatment for opioid dependence in NSW. Aggregate data were obtained on numbers of adverse events in NSW. Rates of each adverse event type within the OATS cohort were modelled. Population data were provided by State and Commonwealth agencies. FINDINGS: Prevalence of opioid dependence among those aged 15-64 years in 2016 was estimated to be 0.96% (95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.82%, 1.12%) from the mortality model, 0.75% (95% CrI = 0.70%, 0.83%) from hospitalizations, 0.95% (95% CrI = 0.90%, 0.99%) from charges and 0.92% (95% CrI = 0.88%, 0.96%) from the multi-source model. Of the estimated 46 460 (95% CrI = 44 680, 48 410) people with opioid dependence in 2016 from the multi-source model, approximately one-third (16 750, 95% CrI = 14 960, 18 690) had no record of opioid agonist treatment within the last 4 years. From the multi-source model, prevalence in 2016 was estimated to be 1.24% (95% CrI = 1.18%, 1.31%) in men aged 15-44, 1.22% (95% CrI = 1.14%, 1.31%) in men 45-64, 0.63% (95% CrI = 0.59%, 0.68%) in women aged 15-44 and 0.56% (95% CrI = 0.50%, 0.63%) in women aged 45-64. CONCLUSIONS: A Bayesian statistical approach to estimate prevalence from multiple adverse event types simultaneously calculates that the estimated prevalence of opioid dependence in NSW, Australia in 2016 was 0.92%, higher than previous estimates.
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 | 0.023 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".