MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Factors associated with take-home naloxone kit usage in British Columbia: an analysis of administrative data

2022· other· en· W6921291324 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
Keywords(+)-NaloxoneOpioid overdoseLogistic regressionMultivariate analysisOpioidDrug overdose

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The British Columbia (BC) Take-Home Naloxone (THN) program provides naloxone to people at risk of experiencing or witnessing an opioid overdose for use in reversing suspected overdose events. This study seeks to examine trends and correlates of individuals obtaining a THN kit in BC between 2017 and 2020. Methods Records of THN kits distributed between 2017 and 2020 were the primary source of data for this analysis. Frequency tables were used to describe characteristics of people obtaining kits from THN sites. Correlates of individuals obtaining a THN kit to replace a previous kit reported as used to reverse an overdose were assessed with multivariate logistic regression. Results Between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2020, 240,606 THN kits were reported distributed by registered sites to members of the public, with 90,011 records indicating that a kit was obtained to replace a previous kit that had been used to reverse an overdose. There was a significant trend in increasing kits reported used by year (p

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders→French-language works237,207→