ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Development and evaluation of machine learning algorithms for the prediction of opioid-related deaths among UK patients with non-cancer pain.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perceptions, knowledge and adoption of artificial intelligence in rheumatology: results from a British Society for Rheumatology survey.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The global rise in prescription opioid use has contributed to an opioid epidemic, associated harms, and unintentional deaths in several western countries. Opioids however continue to be regularly prescribed for acute pain and in the chronic pain context due to limited treatment options. Currently there are no accurate tools that help predict which patients prescribed opioids may be at risk of death, which depends on the cultural context and varies across countries. Existing models do not account for statistical considerations such as censoring and competing risks. Using nationally representative data from the United Kingdom from 1,026,139 patients newly prescribed an opioid, we developed three competing risk time-to-event models: a regression model, a random forest, and a deep neural network to predict opioid-related deaths using UK primary care records. The models were externally validated in an external cohort of 337,015 patients. The models exhibited good discrimination and positive predictive value during internal validation (C-statistic for the regression model, random forest, and neural network: 84.3%, 84.4% and 82.1% respectively), and external validation (C-statistic for the regression model, random forest, and neural network: 81.8%, 81.5% and 81.5% respectively). Prior substance abuse, lung and liver comorbidities, morphine, fentanyl, or oxycodone at initiation and co-prescription of gabapentinoids were some of candidate predictors associated with a higher risk of opioid-related mortality within the models. These results demonstrate how routinely collected data from a nationally representative dataset may be used to develop and validate opioids risk algorithms to better help clinicians and patients predict risk to this serious adverse outcome.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.