Detecting univariate, bivariate, and overall effects of drug mixtures using Bayesian kernel machine regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Innovative analytic approaches to drug studies are needed to understand better the co-use of opioids with non-opioids among people using illicit drugs. One approach is the Bayesian kernel machine regression (BKMR), widely applied in environmental epidemiology to study exposure mixtures but has received far less attention in substance use research.Objective: To describe the utility of the BKMR approach to study the effects of drug substance mixtures on health outcomes.Methods: We simulated data for 200 individuals. Using the Vale and Maurelli method, we simulated multivariate non-normal drug exposure data: xylazine (mean = 300 ng/mL, SD = 100 ng/mL), fentanyl (mean = 200 ng/mL, SD = 71 ng/mL), benzodiazepine (mean = 300 ng/mL, SD = 55 ng/mL), and nitazene (mean = 200 ng/mL, SD = 141 ng/mL) concentrations. We performed 10,000 MCMC sampling iterations with three Markov chains. Model diagnostics included trace plots, r-hat values, and effective sample sizes. We also provided visual relationships of the univariate and bivariate exposure-response and the overall mixture effect.Results: Higher levels of fentanyl and nitazene concentrations were associated with higher levels of the simulated health outcome, controlling for age. Trace plots, r-hat values, and effective sample size statistics demonstrated BKMR stability across multiple Markov chains.Conclusions: Our understanding of drug mixtures tends to be limited to studies of single-drug models. BKMR offers an innovative way to discern which substances pose a greater health risk than other substances and can be applied to assess univariate, bivariate, and cumulative drug effects on health outcomes.
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 | 0.015 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".