Beyond the stigma of methadone maintenance treatment : neurocognitive recovery in individuals with opiate use disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Studies of cognitive functioning in drug addiction have shown consistent impairments among substance dependent populations. Several attempts to highlight the neurocognitive recovery of former opioid dependent individuals who are stabilised on methadone, have resulted in contradictory conclusions. The aim of this study is to compare the cognitive function of recovering opioid dependent individuals on methadone maintenance treatment to those who are not on methadone treatment, relative to healthy controls. -- \n \n \nMethods: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment Tool was administered to three groups of participants: 22 former opioid dependents receiving methadone maintenance treatment, 21 former opioid dependents withdrawn from all opiates and 22 healthy controls without a history of illicit substance dependence. The specific cognitive domains tested include executive function, visuospatial skills, naming, attention, language, abstraction, delayed recall and orientation. -- \n \n \nResults: Visuospatial skills and executive function were significantly improved with methadone. The language domain appears to be significantly impaired in both opioid dependent groups with a strong negative correlation to the duration of dependency. Participants who had stopped methadone were significantly impaired in all other aspects of cognition tested apart from naming and orientation when compared to healthy controls. Participants on methadone did not significantly differ in the other areas of cognition when compared to controls. -- \n \n \nConclusions: Methadone treatment appears to be associated with an improvement in cognitive function in opioid dependent individuals. Thus, methadone may facilitate public health by ensuring compliance of opioid dependent individuals to their treatment plan with fewer relapse rates and mitigation of risky behaviours.
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".