New psychoactive substances (NPS) identified in Canada: Results of the online NPS survey (2020–2023)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose and Scope New psychoactive substances (NPS) are a broad class of compounds that are typically designed to mimic illicit substances and circumvent legislative controls. It is often difficult to predict their toxicity and other health effects due to a lack of research and data. In this study, NPS are defined as substances that are not controlled under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ( CDSA ) or otherwise regulated in Canada. Health Canada conducted the Online NPS Survey between March 2020 and March 2023 as a first step to identifying NPS used in Canada. The survey additionally aimed to characterize NPS use patterns in Canada and identify trends in the chemistry and pharmacology of reported substances. The online, self-administered questionnaire was regularly promoted on substance use discussion forums, harm reduction network sites, and social media. The questionnaire asked participants for information pertaining to an episode of NPS use in the past 12 months. Results Two hundred sixty-two (262) episodes of NPS use were reported, from which 38 unique NPS were identified. Twenty-four (24) were hallucinogens (63.2%); six were sedatives (15.8%); three were opioids (7.9%); three were stimulants (7.9%); one was a dissociative (2.6%); and one was an antidepressant (2.6%). The most common NPS chemical classes were tryptamines (34.2%), lysergamides (18.4%), and phenethylamines (7.9%) all of which belong to the hallucinogen pharmacological class. The prevalence of hallucinogens reported in the survey may be largely due to the definition of NPS used in the study, which was restricted to substances that are not regulated in Canada. The three most commonly reported NPS were 1-propionyl lysergic acid diethylamide (1P-LSD), 4-acetoxy-dimethyltryptamine (4-AcO-DMT), and 4-hydroxy-N-methyl-N-ethyl tryptamine (4-HO-MET). Polysubstance use was reported in 131 (50.0%) episodes of NPS use. Cannabis was reported as the most concurrently used substance (102 cases, 77.9%) with NPS, followed by tobacco and alcohol in 34 (26.0%) and 29 (22.1%) cases, respectively. Of the responses that reported a source for the NPS in question, the majority claimed to have purchased the NPS from an online store. Unwanted health effects were reported in over 50% of cases. Conclusions Structural trends amongst reported NPS were analysed, with a focus on hallucinogens of the tryptamine, lysergamide, and phenethylamine chemical classes. The survey provides valuable insight into NPS use and trends in Canada. More research is required to address specific concerns such as polysubstance use and health outcomes. More than half of reported episodes indicated unwanted health effects, indicating a need for further clinical research in NPS toxicology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".