Patient perspectives on current and potential therapies and clinical trial approaches for cocaine use disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cocaine use disorder (CUD) is characterized by the continued use of cocaine despite serious impacts on life. This study focused on understanding the perspective of individuals with current CUD, individuals in CUD remission, and their supporters regarding current therapies, future therapies, and views on clinical trials for CUD. Methods: The online bulletin board (OBB) is a qualitative tool where participants engage in an interactive discussion on a virtual forum. Following completion of a screening questionnaire to determine eligibility, individuals in CUD remission and their supporters logged in to the OBB and responded to questions posed by the moderator. Individuals with current CUD participated in a one-time virtual focus group. Results: All individuals with current CUD and 94% of those in CUD remission reported a diagnosis consistent with CUD or substance use disorder during screening. Individuals with current CUD and their supporters were recruited from the United States (US). Individuals in CUD remission were recruited from five countries, including the US. Individuals with current CUD reported hesitation about seeking treatment due to stigma, a lack of privacy, and being labeled as a drug seeker; barriers to therapy included time, cost, and a lack of privacy. Participants wanted a safe therapy to stop cravings and withdrawal symptoms. Seven clinical trial outcomes, including long-term abstinence and craving control, were suggested based on collected insights. Conclusion: This study can help inform the design of clinical trials and emphasize the need for effective, safe, and accessible therapies. Recruiting participants will require significant trust building.
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 | 0.020 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".