Are Treatment Services Ready for the Use of Big Data Analytics and AI in Managing Opioid Use Disorder?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this viewpoint, we explore the use of big data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) and discuss important challenges to their ethical, effective, and equitable use within opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment settings. Applying our collective experiences as OUD policy and treatment experts, we discuss 8 key challenges that OUD treatment services must contend with to make the most of these rapidly evolving technologies: data and algorithmic transparency, clinical validation, new practitioner-technology interfaces, capturing data relevant to improving patient care, understanding and responding to algorithmic outputs, obtaining informed patient consent, navigating mistrust, and addressing digital exclusion and bias. Through this paper, we hope to critically engage clinicians and policy makers on important ethical considerations, clinical implications, and implementation challenges involved in big data analytics and AI deployment in OUD treatment settings.
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 | 0.126 | 0.238 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".