MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Alexithymia And Buprenorphine Addiction

2017· other· en· W6965021148 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and biodiversity studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaBuprenorphineAddictionPsychosocialPersonalityToronto Alexithymia ScaleSensation seekingSubstance abuseVulnerability (computing)Stigma (botany)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Aims:Itu2019s currently admitted that vulnerability to substance use disorders results from the interaction of several factors related to the product , the environment or to the individual. Our aim was to study the alexithymia as a personality dimension among subjects addicted to buprenorphine (Subutexu00ae) compared to controls .Methods:We conducted a cross sectional comparative study including 50 patients with addiction to buprenorphine (Subutexu00ae) and 50 witnesses. We collected sociodemographic informations, history and addictive course using a data record. We estimated alexithymia with the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20).Results:Mean score of alexithymia on TAS-20 with users of buprenorphine (Subutexu00ae) was significantly higher than among the control population: 63,42 versus 53,54 (p<0,001). Alexithymia was strongly associated with buprenorphine addiction (54% versus 24% p= 0,002). The unemployment , the family judicial history ,the personal psychiatric history ,the poly drug use and the high level of seeking sensation were identified as risk factors of addiction to buprenorphine (Subutexu00ae). Conclusions:The good knowledge of buprenorphine addictionu2019s risk factors is absolutely crucial. It allows prevention initiatives targeted for these contexts of vulnerability, thanks to the implementation of an adapted and early psychosocial support.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
Open science0.0030.016
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0840.006

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.250 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library)Same topicEcology and biodiversity studiesFrench-language works237,207