Socio-demographic, clinical variables and pain among Egyptian patients of opioid use disorder with and without comorbid gabapentin use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction There is increased clinical use of gabapentin, these trends appear to chronologically align with the opioid overdose crisis and particularly with the increased restrictions on opioid prescription. Objectives The study aimed to assess the clinical variables, pain quality, and severity among patients with opioid use disorder as the main substance with and without gabapentin comorbid use. Methods The research involved 60 patients diagnosed with substance use disorder, divided into two groups: opioid use as the main substance and opioid use with comorbid gabapentin. All participants were assessed using a semi-structured clinical addiction interview, the structured clinical interview for diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, the Addiction Severity Index, urine drug test, McGill Pain Questionnaire, and Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questionnaire, in one interview setting. Results The study showed that pain relief was the main desirable effect in the gabapentin group, with 66.2% of the group experiencing it. Euphoria was the desirable effect in the opioid group, while overdose was more common in the gabapentin group. Respiratory complications were also more common in the Gabapentin group. Conclusion The study concluded that patients with comorbid gabapentin use disorder had a higher frequency of overdose, history of pain, and significant neuropathic pain, while less abstinence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".