MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404181329 · doi:10.1111/add.16706

Differences in heroin overdose risk associated with the unregulated drug market: Insights from a supervised injecting facility in Melbourne, Australia

2024· article· en· W4404181329 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan C. Stam, John Furler, Sarah Hiley, Jennifer Schumann

Bibliographic record

VenueAddiction · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsRichmond Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeroinDrug overdoseDrugMedicineHeroin dependenceIllicit drugSuicide preventionEnvironmental healthPoison controlMedical emergencyInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthPsychiatryBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To determine the contribution that variation in the unregulated drug market has on the risk of heroin overdose across individuals with different levels of personal overdose risk. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of heroin injecting episodes and overdose cases were examined over a 12-month period between 30 June 2022 and 30 June 2023. SETTING: The Medically Supervised Injecting Room in Melbourne, Australia. CASES: 1474 witnessed heroin overdose cases were examined amongst a cohort of 337 individuals who were predominantly male (n = 276, 81.7%) with a median age of 43.5 years (interquartile range 37.25-49.00 years, range 20-75 years). MEASUREMENTS: The daily overdose rate was used to differentiate High and Low daily overdose risk categories. The number of overdose events that an individual experienced during the study period was used to differentiate people into Standard, Moderate and High personal overdose risk categories. Each overdose case was differentiated by the personal overdose risk of the individual who experienced the overdose, as well as the overdose risk of the day that overdose occurred. A stratified overdose risk profile was then derived across the nine different daily overdose risk and personal overdose risk categories. FINDINGS: The rate of overdose approximately doubled on High overdose risk days compared with Standard overdose risk days, increasing by a factor of 2.11, 2.41 and 2.03 times for individuals in the Standard, Moderate and High personal overdose risk groups. Conversely, the rate of overdose was also substantially reduced on Low overdose risk days to a factor of 0.17, 0.28 and 0.20, respectively. CONCLUSION: Among heroin users in Melbourne, Australia, there is an approximately 10-times difference in the risk of overdose on some days compared with others, which appears to be attributable to the effects of the unregulated drug market and not the effects of variation in personal overdose risk of individuals.

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)0.002
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 score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAddictionSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207