Use of Patterns of Service Utilization and Hierarchical Survival Analysis in Planning and Providing Care for Overdose Patients and Predicting the Time-to-Second Overdose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals from a variety of backgrounds are affected by the opioid crisis. To provide optimal care for individuals at risk of opioid overdose and prevent subsequent overdoses, a more targeted response that goes beyond the traditional taxonomical diagnosis approach to care management needs to be adopted. In previous works, Graph Machine Learning and Natural Language Processing methods were used to model the products for planning and evaluating the treatment of patients with complex issues. This study proposes a methodology of partitioning patients in the opioid overdose cohort into various communities based on their patterns of service utilization (PSUs) across the continuum of care using graph community detection and applying survival analysis to predict time-to-second overdose for each of the communities. The results demonstrated that the overdose cohort is not homogeneous with respect to the determinants of risk. Moreover, the risk for subsequent overdose was quantified: there is a 51% higher chance of experiencing a second overdose for a high-risk community compared to a low-risk community. The proposed method can inform a more efficient treatment heterogeneity approach for a cohort made of diverse individuals, such as the opioid overdose cohort. It can also guide targeted support for patients at risk of subsequent overdoses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".