MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413512801 · doi:10.1093/pm/pnaf116

Evidence-based framework for identifying opioid use disorder in administrative data: A systematic review and methodological development study

2025· review· en· W4413512801 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert W. Hurley, Khadijah T Bland, Mira D Chaskes, Daniel J. Guth, Elaine Hill, Meredith C B Adams

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institutes of HealthNevro
KeywordsMedicaidMEDLINEDiagnosis codeIdentification (biology)Systematic reviewMedicineHealth careData scienceComputer scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate existing approaches for identifying opioid use disorder (OUD) in administrative data sets and develop evidence-based recommendations for standardized identification methods. DESIGN: Systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Scoping Review guidelines with comprehensive literature search and evidence synthesis for framework development. SETTING: Administrative data sets including commercial claims, Medicaid, Medicare, and electronic health records. SUBJECTS: In brief, 169 studies using administrative codes to identify OUD, primarily from US healthcare systems (94.7%). METHODS: Systematic search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and PubMed through February 2024. Three independent reviewers screened articles and extracted data using standardized tools. Study quality was assessed using modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Framework development employed systematic integration of evidence-based components from high-quality studies. RESULTS: Our analysis of 169 studies revealed four distinct identification approaches: Direct diagnosis codes (36.7%), composite definitions (48.0%), overdose codes (10.1%), and medication-assisted treatment codes (1.2%). Commercial claims data predominated (60.4%), followed by Medicaid claims (10.1%) and electronic health records (7.7%). Multi-modal strategies incorporating both diagnostic and treatment codes showing superior theoretical foundation compared to single-method approaches. Substantial variation existed in reference periods, code requirements, and treatment verification approaches. CONCLUSIONS: An evidence-based framework incorporating diagnosis codes, specific temporal requirements, validated indirect indicators, and treatment evidence provides theoretical foundation for standardized OUD identification protocols. The framework addresses known sources of misclassification while maintaining diagnostic specificity through clinical diagnostic alignment and systematic validation research programs. REGISTRATION: Prospero (CRD42023406173) and OSF (osf.io/ru4j3).

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.098
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.098
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.557
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.015 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain MedicineSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207