MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415779959 · doi:10.1111/add.70242

Reframing stimulant‐involved mortality: Counting—and preventing—fentanyl ± stimulant deaths as opioid deaths

2025· article· en· W4415779959 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yu‐Wei Wu, Lien‐Chung Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueAddiction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulantFentanylOpioidAccidentalOddsDrug overdoseOpioid overdoseMethamphetamineOpioid use disorderPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reframing stimulant-involved mortality: Counting-and preventing-fentanyl ± stimulant deaths as opioid deathsChang and colleagues [1] show that in San Francisco, 2013 to 2023, deaths attributed to fentanyl-whether or not stimulants are detected-share similar cause-of-death profiles and are distinct from stimulant-only deaths.This distinction should reshape surveillance and prevention.threshold MOUD and sedative-risk messaging for fentanyl-driven deaths-while different strategies address stimulant-only mortality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.134
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.134
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAddictionSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207