Predicting Risk of Heroin Overdose, Remission, Use, and Mortality Using Ensemble Learning Methods in a Cohort of People with Heroin Dependence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite decades of research demonstrating the effectiveness of treatments for heroin dependence, rates of heroin use, dependence, and death have dramatically increased over the past decade. While evidence has highlighted a range of risk and protective factors for relapse, remission, and other outcomes, this presents clinicians with the challenge as to how to synthesise and integrate the evolving evidence-base to guide clinical decision-making and facilitate the provision of personalised healthcare. Using data from the 11-year follow-up of the Australian Treatment Outcome Study (ATOS), we aimed to develop a clinical risk prediction model to assist clinicians calculate the risk of a range of heroin-related outcomes at varying follow-up intervals for their clients based on known risk factors. Between 2001 and 2002, 615 people with heroin dependence were recruited as part of a prospective longitudinal cohort study. An ensemble machine learning approach was applied to predict risk of heroin use, remission, overdose, and mortality at 1-, 5-, and 10 + year post-study entry. Variables most consistently ranked in the top 10 in terms of their level of importance across outcomes included age; age first got high, used heroin, or injected; sexual trauma; years of school completed; prison history; severe mental health disability; past month criminal involvement; and past month benzodiazepine use. This study provides clinically relevant information on key risk factors associated with heroin use, remission, non-fatal overdose, and mortality among people with heroin dependence, to help guide clinical decision-making in the selection and tailoring of interventions to ensure that the ‘right treatment’ is delivered to the ‘right person’ at the ‘right time’.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".