MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408296891 · doi:10.1186/s12954-025-01189-w

Is fentanyl in everything? Examining the unexpected occurrence of illicit opioids in British Columbia’s drug supply

2025· article· en· W4408296891 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bruce Wallace, Irene Shkolnikov, Collin Kielty, Derek J. S. Robinson, Lea Gozdzialski, Jai Joshua, Ava Margolese, Pablo Gonzalez-Nieto, Armin Saatchi, Lucas R. Abruzzi, Taelor M. Zarkovic, Chris G. Gill, Dennis K. Hore

Bibliographic record

VenueHarm Reduction Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Canadian institutionsVancouver Island UniversityUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFentanylHealth psychologyIllicit drugMedicineOpioidDrugAnesthesiaPsychiatryPublic healthInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Illicit opioids, including fentanyl, are linked to unprecedented levels of overdose in Canada and elsewhere. The risks associated with illicit opioids can include high potency, unpredictable concentration and the unexpected presence in other drugs. Within this context, we examine drug checking data to better understand the presence of illicit opioids such as fentanyl in other drugs and possible ways to interpret these results. METHODS: Three years (2021-2023) of data (18,474 samples) from Substance Drug Checking in British Columbia, Canada were examined to investigate the risks associated with the detection of opioids in other drugs such as cocaine and methamphetamine, as well as in other drug categories. Samples were tested by paper spray mass spectrometry (PS-MS), fentanyl test strips and Fourier-Transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). We examine the 8889 samples not expected to include fentanyl to confirm; if the expected drug was detected, if unexpected opioids were detected, and when the unexpected opioids are in trace concentration. RESULTS: Unexpected opioids were rarely detected (2%) in other drugs (189 of 8889 samples) with most (61.4%) detected at trace concentration levels. Unexpected opioids are far more likely to be found in samples that did not contain the expected drug than in samples that were confirmed to contain the expected drug. The least common scenario (below 1%) were substances that included the expected drug plus unexpected opioid above trace concentration. These findings raise questions on how to interpret and communicate the detection of fentanyl and related opioids in other drugs. We present three potential interpretations: (1) mistaken and misrepresented samples where the expected drug was never detected, (2) cross contamination when opioids were at trace concentration levels, or (3) adulteration as the least frequent scenario where opioids were detected above trace concentrations in combination with the expected drug. CONCLUSIONS: In a region where fentanyl is associated with extreme rates of overdose, it remains rare to find such opioids in other drugs. However, the risk of fentanyl in other drugs remains an ongoing threat that warrants responses by individuals and public health. We provide possible interpretations to inform such responses. Our data raises questions on how to interpret and communicate the detection of fentanyl and other opioids in other drugs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarm Reduction JournalSame topicForensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisFrench-language works237,207