MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400287707 · doi:10.1001/amajethics.2024.512

How Should Risks and Benefits of Short-Acting Opioids Be Evaluated in the Care of Inpatients With OUD?

2024· article· en· W4400287707 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe AMA Journal of Ethic · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOpioid use disorderOxycodoneHeroin(+)-NaloxoneFentanylPsychological interventionOpioidOpioid epidemicSubstance abuseSAFERPain managementMethadoneIntensive care medicinePsychiatryDrugAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Severe opioid withdrawal, risk of patient-initiated discharge, and some inpatients' use of unregulated substances prompt clinical and ethical questions considered in this commentary on a case. Short-acting opioids can be used to manage inpatients' pain and opioid use disorder (OUD) withdrawal symptoms. Including evidence-based interventions-such as naloxone kits, substance use equipment, and supervised consumption-in some inpatients' care plans may make those patients safer and reduce their risk of death. These and other strategies align with clinicians' ethical duties to minimize harms and maximize benefits for inpatients with OUD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it