MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403803825 · doi:10.1101/2024.10.24.24315474

Surveillance for Opioid-Associated Amnestic Syndrome in Canada, 2010-2022

2024· preprint· en· W4403803825 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jed A. Barash

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpioidMedicinePsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives A single diagnostic code could be used to perform surveillance for opioid-associated amnestic syndrome (OAS) in healthcare datasets on a national scale. Methods A request was submitted to search the Discharge Abstract Database (DAD) and the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS) in Canada for the ICD-10-CA code, F11.6 (mental and behavioural disorders due to use of opioids, amnesic syndrome) during fiscal years (FY) 2010-2011 through 2022-2023. The annual total of encounters using this code was determined and crude rates per million were calculated for the Canadian population represented. Results National counts from DAD and NACRS combined ranged from <5 to 14 annually. Rates per million for available years fell between 0.17 and 0.48. For available data through FY 2015-2016, the mean number of annual combined encounters nationally was 6.3; for those years after, the mean was 10. The mean rate per million was 0.23 and 0.35 for these two periods, respectively. Discussion This study represents the first effort to conduct surveillance for OAS on a national scale and suggests that the condition is relatively rare. Future efforts to validate the coded diagnosis of OAS with confirmed cases will help determine its value as a surveillance tool.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment→French-language works237,207→