Psychiatric and behavioral disorders in patients undergoing opioid agonist maintenance therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to analyze anxiety, depression, aggression, cognitive impairments, and quality of life in patients receiving methadone maintenance therapy. The study was conducted in 2024 at one of the methadone maintenance therapy sites of the Municipal Enterprise «Dnipropetrovsk multidisciplinary clinical hospital for the provision of psychiatric care» Dnipropetrovsk Regional Council». A total of 150 patients aged 26 to 64 years participated in the study, including 117 (78.0%) men and 33 (22.0%) women. The participants were divided into the main group (101 individuals) and the comparison group (49 individuals). The study employed clinical-anamnestic, clinical-psychopathological, and psychodiagnostic methods, including the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R), the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and the World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief Questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF). The results indicated that the median levels of depression 13,0 [7,0; 19,0] and anxiety 15,0 [8,0; 22,0] in the total sample and both groups corresponded to a mild severity. Most patients exhibited mild anxiety (60,7%). Depression assessment revealed that the majority of patients either had no depression (28,7%) or presented with mild symptoms (24,0%). The majority of participants had no cognitive impairment (45,3%) or only mild deficits (54,7%). Patients demonstrated normal levels of aggression 19,0 [16,0; 24,0] but exhibited an increased level of hostility 10,0 [8,0; 12,0]. At baseline, mild anxiety and depressive symptoms predominated among patients receiving methadone therapy. Elevated hostility was observed, whereas overall aggression remained within the normative range. Cognitive impairment was absent or mild. These baseline findings may inform the development of differentiated treatment strategies for this cohort.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".