Fentanyl and other New Psychoactive Synthetic Opioids. Challenges to Prevention and Treatment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synthetic opioids have played a significant role in the current opioid crisis in the United States (U.S.) and Canada and are a matter of concern worldwide. New psychoactive opioids (NPOs) are classified in the internationally recognized new psychoactive substances (NPSs) category. This group comprises compounds that may have been synthesized decades ago but appeared only recently in the illicit drug market. Such is the case of fentanyl, fentanyl analogs, and non-fentanyl opioids. Most NPOs have effects similar to morphine, including euphoria and analgesia, and can produce fatal respiratory depression. Here, we present an overview of the systemic and molecular effects of main NPOs, their classification, and their pharmacological properties. We first review the fentanyl group of NPOs, including the four compounds of clinical use (fentanyl, alfentanil, sufentanil, and remifentanil) and the veterinary drug carfentanil. We also provide essential information on non-medical fentanyl analogs and other synthetic opioids such as brorphine, etonitazene, and MT-45, used as adulterants in commonly misused drugs. This paper also summarizes the scarce literature on the use of NPOs in Mexico. It concludes with a brief review of the challenges to prevention and treatment posed by NPOs and some recommendations to face them.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it