Opioid-related harms and care impacts of conventional and AI-based prescription management strategies: insights from leveraging agent-based modeling and machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: prescription routes, practitioners and health systems have an enduring need to identify and effectively respond to the problematic use of opioid prescription. There are strong challenges to successfully addressing this need: importantly, the patterns of prescription fulfillment that signal opioid abuse can be subtle and difficult to recognize, and overzealous enforcement can deprive those with legitimate pain management needs the appropriate care. Moreover, injudicious responses risk shifting those suffering from early-stage abuse of prescribed opioids to illicitly sourced street alternatives, whose varying dosage, availability, and the risk of adulteration can pose grave health risks. Methods: This study employs a dynamic modeling and simulation to evaluate the effectiveness of prescription regimes employing machine learning monitoring programs to identify the patients who are at risk of opioid abuse while being treated with prescribed opioids. To this end, an agent-based model was developed and implemented to examine the effect of reduced prescribing and prescription drug monitoring programs on overdose and escalation to street opioids among patients, and on the legitimacy of fulfillments of opioid prescriptions over a 5-year time horizon. A study released by the Canadian Institute for Health Information was used to estimate the parameter values and assist in the validation of the existing agent-based model. Results and discussion: The model estimates that lowering the prescription doses exerted the most favorable impact on the outcomes of interest over 5 years with a minimum burden on patients with a legitimate need for pharmaceutical opioids. The accurate conclusion about the impact of public health interventions requires a comprehensive set of outcomes to test their multi-dimensional effects, as utilized in this research. Finally, combining machine learning and agent-based modeling can provide significant advantages, particularly when using the latter to gain insights into the long-term effects and dynamic circumstances of the former.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".