Data on drug overdose death rates, by drug type and selected population characteristics. Please refer to the PDF or Excel version of this table in the HUS 2019 Data Finder (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/contents2019.htm) for critical information about measures, definitions, and changes over time. SOURCE: NCHS, National Vital Statistics System, numerator data from annual public-use Mortality Files; denominator data from U.S. Census Bureau national population estimates; and Murphy SL, Xu JQ, Kochanek KD, Arias E, Tejada-Vera B. Deaths: Final data for 2018. National Vital Statistics Reports; vol 69 no 13. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.2021. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm. For more information on the National Vital Statistics System, see the corresponding Appendix entry at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus19-appendix-508.pdf.

This data presents provisional counts for drug overdose deaths based on a current flow of mortality data in the National Vital Statistics System. Counts for the most recent final annual data are provided for comparison. National provisional counts include deaths occurring within the 50 states and the District of Columbia as of the date specified and may not include all deaths that occurred during a given time period. Provisional counts are often incomplete and causes of death may be pending investigation resulting in an underestimate relative to final counts. To address this, methods were developed to adjust provisional counts for reporting delays by generating a set of predicted provisional counts. Several data quality metrics, including the percent completeness in overall death reporting, percentage of deaths with cause of death pending further investigation, and the percentage of drug overdose deaths with specific drugs or drug classes reported are included to aid in interpretation of provisional data as these measures are related to the accuracy of provisional counts. Reporting of the specific drugs and drug classes involved in drug overdose deaths varies by jurisdiction, and comparisons of death rates involving specific drugs across selected jurisdictions should not be made. Provisional data presented will be updated on a monthly basis as additional records are received. For more information please visit: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm

This data visualization presents county-level provisional counts for drug overdose deaths based on a current flow of mortality data in the National Vital Statistics System. County-level provisional counts include deaths occurring within the 50 states and the District of Columbia, as of the date specified and may not include all deaths that occurred during a given time period. Provisional counts are often incomplete and causes of death may be pending investigation resulting in an underestimate relative to final counts (see Technical Notes).

The provisional data presented on the dashboard below include reported 12 month-ending provisional counts of death due to drug overdose by the decedent’s county of residence and the month in which death occurred.

Percentages of deaths with a cause of death pending further investigation and a note on historical completeness (e.g. if the percent completeness was under 90% after 6 months) are included to aid in interpretation of provisional data as these measures are related to the accuracy of provisional counts (see Technical Notes). Counts between 1-9 are suppressed in accordance with NCHS confidentiality standards. Provisional data presented on this page will be updated on a quarterly basis as additional records are received.

Technical Notes

Nature and Sources of Data

Provisional drug overdose death counts are based on death records received and processed by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) as of a specified cutoff date. The cutoff date is generally the first Sunday of each month. National provisional estimates include deaths occurring within the 50 states and the District of Columbia. NCHS receives the death records from the state vital registration offices through the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program (VSCP).

The timeliness of provisional mortality surveillance data in the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) database varies by cause of death and jurisdiction in which the death occurred. The lag time (i.e., the time between when the death occurred and when the data are available for analysis) is longer for drug overdose deaths compared with other causes of death due to the time often needed to investigate these deaths (1). Thus, provisional estimates of drug overdose deaths are reported 6 months after the date of death.

Provisional death counts presented in this data visualization are for “12 month-ending periods,” defined as the number of deaths occurring in the 12 month period ending in the month indicated. For example, the 12 month-ending period in June 2020 would include deaths occurring from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. The 12 month-ending period counts include all seasons of the year and are insensitive to reporting variations by seasonality. These provisional counts of drug overdose deaths and related data quality metrics are provided for public health surveillance and monitoring of emerging trends. Provisional drug overdose death data are often incomplete, and the degree of completeness varies by jurisdiction and 12 month-ending period. Consequently, the numbers of drug overdose deaths are underestimated based on provisional data relative to final data and are subject to random variation.

Cause of Death Classification and Definition of Drug Deaths

Mortality statistics are compiled in accordance with the World Health Organizations (WHO) regulations specifying that WHO member nations classify and code causes of death with the current revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD). ICD provides the basic guidance used in virtually all countries to code and classify causes of death. It provides not only disease, injury, and poisoning categories but also the rules used to select the single underlying cause of death for tabulation from the several diagnoses that may be reported on a single death certificate, as well as definitions, tabulation lists, the format of the death certificate, and regul

Annual number of deaths registered related to drug poisoning, by local authority, England and Wales.

U.S. Opiate Prescriptions

Accidental death by fatal drug overdose is a rising trend in the United States. What can you do to help?

This dataset contains summaries of prescription records for 250 common opioid and non-opioid drugs written by 25,000 unique licensed medical professionals in 2014 in the United States for citizens covered under Class D Medicare as well as some metadata about the doctors themselves. This is a small subset of data that was sourced from cms.gov. The full dataset contains almost 24 million prescription instances in long format. I have cleaned and compiled this data here in a format with 1 row per prescriber and limited the approximately 1 million total unique prescribers down to 25,000 to keep it manageable. If you are interested in more data, you can get the script I used to assemble the dataset here and run it yourself. The main data is in prescriber-info.csv. There is also opioids.csv that contains the names of all opioid drugs included in the data and overdoses.csv that contains information on opioid related drug overdose fatalities.

The increase in overdose fatalities is a well-known problem, and the search for possible solutions is an ongoing effort. My primary interest in this dataset is detecting sources of significant quantities of opiate prescriptions. However, there is plenty of other studies to perform, and I am interested to see what other Kagglers will come up with, or if they can improve the model I have already built.

The data consists of the following characteristics for each prescriber

• NPI – unique National Provider Identifier number
• Gender - (M/F)
• State - U.S. State by abbreviation
• Credentials - set of initials indicative of medical degree
• Specialty - description of type of medicinal practice
• A long list of drugs with numeric values indicating the total number of prescriptions written for the year by that individual
• Opioid.Prescriber - a boolean label indicating whether or not that individual prescribed opiate drugs more than 10 times in the year

This dataset contains frequencies, rates, and proportions that describe drug toxicity deaths in Nova Scotia over time and space and by certain demographic and contextual characteristics. See usage considerations for further details on these data.

Drug-related mortality is a complex phenomenon, which accounts for a considerable percentage of deaths among young people in many European countries. The EMCDDA, in collaboration with national experts, has defined an epidemiological indicator with two components at present: deaths directly caused by illegal drugs (drug-induced deaths) and mortality rates among problem drug users. These two components can fulfil several public health objectives, notably as an indicator of the overall health impact of drug use and the components of this impact, identify particularly risky patterns of use, and potentially identify new risks.

There are around 50 statistical tables in this dataset. Each data table may be viewed as an HTML table or downloaded in spreadsheet (Excel format).

We collect data and report statistics on opioid, stimulant, and other substance use and their impact on health and well-being.

Illicit Drug Use reports an estimated average percent of people who consumed illicit substances by type of use and by age range. Illicit drugs include marijuana or hashish (unless otherwise specified as 'Not Including Marijuana'), cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens (including phencyclidine [PCP], lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD], and Ecstasy [MDMA]), inhalants, or prescription-type psychotherapeutics used nonmedically, which include pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives, but does not include GHB (gamma hydroxybutyrate), Adderall, Ambien, nonprescription cough or cold medicines, ketamine, DMT (dimethyltryptamine), AMT (alpha-methyltryptamine), 5-MeO-DIPT (N, N-diisopropyl-5-methoxytryptamine, also known as 'Foxy'), and Salvia divinorum. Dependence is defined consistent with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) definition as:Spending a lot of time engaging in activities related to substance useUsing a substance in greater quantities or for a longer time than intended. Developing tolerance (i.e., needing to use the substance more than before to get desired effects or noticing that the same amount of substance use had less effect than before)Making unsuccessful attempts to cut down on useContinuing substance use despite physical health or emotional problems associated with substance useReducing or eliminating participation in other activities because of substance useExperiencing withdrawal symptomsSimilarly, Abuse is also defined consistent with the DSM-IV definition as the following lifestyle symptoms due to the use of illicit drugs in the past 12 months: Experiencing problems at work, home, and schoolDoing something physically dangerousExperiencing Repeated trouble with the lawExperiencing Problems with family or friendsThese data are collected by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) as part of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) Substate Region Estimates by Age Group. This survey is conducted on a representative sample of U.S. civilian, non-institutionalized people ages 12 and older. Data are available for the state of Connecticut, substate regions within Connecticut, the Northeast region of the United States, and the Total United States.

This dataset includes a subset of data collected through the Johns Hopkins University social network-based intervention study CHAMPS CONNECT conducted in Baltimore, Maryland. A total of 111 people who inject drugs (PWID) were recruited from an infectious disease clinic and community-based sites in Baltimore between 1/25/2018 and 1/4/2019. Index members were 18 years of age or older, English speaking, hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody positive, and reported injecting drugs with another during the past year. Indexes were asked to recruit their injection drug network members for HCV testing and linkage to care. The primary objective of the secondary study was to analyze data from indexes and network participant members to assess psychological factors that may be significantly associated with self-reported number of lifetime drug overdoses. Variables in the dataset include demographics, employment, substance use history and treatment, mental health diagnoses and treatment, overdose, injection drug use, and questions from the Center of Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale.

Data from surveillance reports provide information on opioid- and stimulant-related harms (deaths, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and responses by emergency medical services) in Canada. The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) works closely with the provinces and territories to collect and share accurate information about the overdose crisis in order to provide a national picture of the public health impact of opioids and other drugs in Canada and to help guide efforts to reduce substance-related harms.

Content

Drug Use By Age

This directory contains data behind the story How Baby Boomers Get High. It covers 13 drugs across 17 age groups.

Source: National Survey on Drug Use and Health from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Data Archive.

Context

This is a dataset from FiveThirtyEight hosted on their GitHub. Explore FiveThirtyEight data using Kaggle and all of the data sources available through the FiveThirtyEight organization page!

• Update Frequency: This dataset is updated daily.

Acknowledgements

This dataset is maintained using GitHub's API and Kaggle's API.

This dataset is distributed under the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.

Cover photo by Eric Muhr on Unsplash
Unsplash Images are distributed under a unique Unsplash License.

Deaths related to drug poisoning in England and Wales by cause of death, sex, age, substances involved in the death, geography and registration delay.

This dataset is comprised of data submitted to HCAI by prescription drug manufacturers for wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) increases that exceed the statutorily-mandated WAC increase threshold of an increase of more than 16% above the WAC of the drug product on December 31 of the calendar year three years prior to the current calendar year. This threshold applies to prescription drug products with a WAC greater than $40 for a course of therapy. Required WAC increase reports are to be submitted to HCAI within a month after the end of the quarter in which the WAC increase went into effect. Please see the statute and regulations for additional information regarding reporting thresholds and report due dates.

Key data elements in this dataset include the National Drug Code (NDC) maintained by the FDA, narrative descriptions of the reasons for the increase in WAC, and the five-year history of WAC increases for the NDC. A WAC Increase Report consists of 27 data elements that have been divided into two separate Excel data sets: Prescription Drug WAC Increase and Prescription Drug WAC Increase – 5 Year History. The datasets include manufacturer WAC Increase Reports received since January 1, 2019. The Prescription Drugs WAC Increase dataset consists of the information submitted by prescription drug manufacturers that pertains to the current WAC increase of a given report, including the amount of the current increase, the WAC after increase, and the effective date of the increase. The Prescription Drugs WAC Increase – 5 Year History dataset consists of the information submitted by prescription drug manufacturers for the data elements that comprise the 5-year history of WAC increases of a given report, including the amount of each increase and their effective dates.

There are 2 types of WAC Increase datasets below: Monthly and Annual. The Monthly datasets include the data in completed reports submitted by manufacturers for calendar year 2025, as of July 8, 2025. The Annual datasets include data in completed reports submitted by manufacturers for the specified year. The datasets may include reports that do not meet the specified minimum thresholds for reporting.

The Quick Guide explaining how to link the information in each data set to form complete reports is here: https://hcai.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/QuickGuide_LinkingTheDatasets.pdf

The program regulations are available here: https://hcai.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/CTRx-Regulations-Text.pdf

The data format and file specifications are available here: https://hcai.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Format-and-File-Specifications-version-2.0-ada.pdf

DATA NOTES: Due to recent changes in Excel, it is not recommended that you save these files to .csv format. If you do, when importing back into Excel the leading zeros in the NDC number column will be dropped. If you need to save it into a different format other than .xlsx it must be .txt

DATA UPDATES: Annual datasets of reports from the preceding year are reviewed in the second half of the current year to identify if any revisions or additions have been made since the original release of the datasets. If revisions or additions have been found, an update of the datasets will be released. Datasets will be clearly marked with 'Updated' in their titles for convenient identification. Not all datasets may require an updated release. The review of previously released datasets will only be conducted once to determine if an updated release is necessary. Datasets with revisions or additions that may have been made after the one-time review can be requested. These requests should be sent via email to ctrx@hcai.ca.gov. Due to regulatory changes that went into effect April 1, 2024, reports submitted prior to April 1, 2024, will include the data field "Unit Sales Volume in US" and reports submitted on or after April 1, 2024, will instead include "Total Volume of Gross Sales in US Dollars".

This dataset was used for the Winter 2018 Kaggle University Club Hackathon and is now publicly available. See Acknowledgments section for citation and licensing. Note: The types of data and recommendation based solutions provided by the contestants are purely for NLP learning purposes. They are not suitable for a real world drug recommendations solutions.

Welcome to the Kaggle University Club Hackathon!

If you are interested in joining Kaggle University Club, please e-mail Jessica Li at lijessica@google.com

This Hackathon is open to all undergraduate, master, and PhD students who are part of the Kaggle University Club program. The Hackathon provides students with a chance to build capacity via hands-on ML, learn from one another, and engage in a self-defined project that is meaningful to their careers.

Teams must register via Google Form to be eligible for the Hackathon. The Hackathon starts on Monday, November 12, 2018 and ends on Monday, December 10, 2018. Teams have one month to work on a team submission. Teams must do all work within the Kernel editor and set Kernel(s) to public at all times.

Prompt

The freestyle format of hackathons has time and again stimulated groundbreaking and innovative data insights and technologies. The Kaggle University Club Hackathon recreates this environment virtually on our platform. We challenge you to build a meaningful project around the UCI Machine Learning - Drug Review Dataset. Teams are free to let their creativity run and propose methods to analyze this dataset and form interesting machine learning models.

Machine learning has permeated nearly all fields and disciplines of study. One hot topic is using natural language processing and sentiment analysis to identify, extract, and make use of subjective information. The UCI ML Drug Review dataset provides patient reviews on specific drugs along with related conditions and a 10-star patient rating system reflecting overall patient satisfaction. The data was obtained by crawling online pharmaceutical review sites. This data was published in a study on sentiment analysis of drug experience over multiple facets, ex. sentiments learned on specific aspects such as effectiveness and side effects (see the acknowledgments section to learn more).

The sky's the limit here in terms of what your team can do! Teams are free to add supplementary datasets in conjunction with the drug review dataset in their Kernel. Discussion is highly encouraged within the forum and Slack so everyone can learn from their peers.

Here are just a couple ideas as to what you could do with the data:

• Classification: Can you predict the patient's condition based on the review?
• Regression: Can you predict the rating of the drug based on the review?
• Sentiment analysis: What elements of a review make it more helpful to others? Which patients tend to have more negative reviews? Can you determine if a review is positive, neutral, or negative?
• Data visualizations: What kind of drugs are there? What sorts of conditions do these patients have?

Top Submissions

There is no one correct answer to this Hackathon, and teams are free to define the direction of their own project. That being said, there are certain core elements generally found across all outstanding Kernels on the Kaggle platform. The best Kernels are:

1. Complex: How many domains of analysis and topics does this Kernel cover? Does it attempt machine learning methods? Does the Kernel offer a variety of unique analyses and interesting conclusions or solutions?
2. Original: What is the subject matter of this Kernel? Does it have a well-defined and interesting project scope, narrative or problem? Could the results make an impact? Is it thought provoking?
3. Approachable: How easy is it to understand this Kernel? Are all thought processes clear? Is the code clean, with useful comments? Are visualizations and processes articulated and self-explanatory?

Teams with top submissions have a chance to receive exclusive Kaggle University Club swag and be featured on our official blog and across social media.

IMPORTANT: Teams must set all Kernels to public at all times. This is so we can track each team's progression, but more importantly it encourages collaboration, productive discussion, and healthy inspiration to all teams. It is not so that teams can simply copycat good ideas. If a team's Kernel isn't their own organic work, it will not be considered a top submission. Teams must come up with a project on their own.

Submission Styling

The final Kernel submission for the Hackathon must contain the following information:

• All team members added as collaborators to the Kernel
• Somewhere at the top of your Kernel, find a space to put down all team member names, university name, club name, and team name (as specified whe...

The Estonian Drug Treatment Database is a state register which is kept on the people who have started drug treatment. The Drug Treatment Database started its work on January 1, 2008.

Collection and processing of data on these people is necessary for getting an overview on occurrence of mental and behavioural disorders related to drug use, as well as for organising of relevant health services and planning of drug abuse preventive actions. Health care institutions holding a psychiatry authorization in Estonia present data to the database if they are turned to by a patient who is diagnosed with a mental and behavioural disorder due to drug use.

On the basis of the database's data, an annual overview is compiled, giving information about drug addicts who have turned to drug treatment in the previous calendar year, about the health service provided, the patients' socio-economic background, drug use and the related risk behaviour.

The data on the Drug Treatment Database are also submitted to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Following on from a previous Freedom of Information request (FOI-02154 https://opendata.nhsbsa.net/dataset/foi-02154), please can you provide me with the data you hold on drugs supplied under a Serious Shortage Protocol (SSP) up to the latest available date, broken down by month supplied, individual drug presentations and including the numbers of each presentation supplied. Ideally the data would cover the dates no included in previous releases. Therefore from June 2024 to latest available date. Response

EMSIndicators:The number of individual patients administered naloxone by EMSThe number of naloxone administrations by EMSThe rate of EMS calls involving naloxone administrations per 10,000 residentsData Source:The Vermont Statewide Incident Reporting Network (SIREN) is a comprehensive electronic prehospital patient care data collection, analysis, and reporting system. EMS reporting serves several important functions, including legal documentation, quality improvement initiatives, billing, and evaluation of individual and agency performance measures.Law Enforcement Indicators:The Number of law enforcement responses to accidental opioid-related non-fatal overdosesData Source:The Drug Monitoring Initiative (DMI) was established by the Vermont Intelligence Center (VIC) in an effort to combat the opioid epidemic in Vermont. It serves as a repository of drug data for Vermont and manages overdose and seizure databases. Notes:Overdose data provided in this dashboard are derived from multiple sources and should be considered preliminary and therefore subject to change. Overdoses included are those that Vermont law enforcement responded to. Law enforcement personnel do not respond to every overdose, and therefore, the numbers in this report are not representative of all overdoses in the state. The overdoses included are limited to those that are suspected to have been caused, at least in part, by opioids. Inclusion is based on law enforcement's perception and representation in Records Management Systems (RMS). All Vermont law enforcement agencies are represented, with the exception of Norwich Police Department, Hartford Police Department, and Windsor Police Department, due to RMS access. Questions regarding this dataset can be directed to the Vermont Intelligence Center at dps.vicdrugs@vermont.gov.Overdoses Indicators:The number of accidental and undetermined opioid-related deathsThe number of accidental and undetermined opioid-related deaths with cocaine involvementThe percent of accidental and undetermined opioid-related deaths with cocaine involvementThe rate of accidental and undetermined opioid-related deathsThe rate of heroin nonfatal overdose per 10,000 ED visitsThe rate of opioid nonfatal overdose per 10,000 ED visitsThe rate of stimulant nonfatal overdose per 10,000 ED visitsData Source:Vermont requires towns to report all births, marriages, and deaths. These records, particularly birth and death records are used to study and monitor the health of a population. Deaths are reported via the Electronic Death Registration System. Vermont publishes annual Vital Statistics reports.The Electronic Surveillance System for the Early Notification of Community-based Epidemics (ESSENCE) captures and analyzes recent Emergency Department visit data for trends and signals of abnormal activity that may indicate the occurrence of significant public health events.Population Health Indicators:The percent of adolescents in grades 6-8 who used marijuana in the past 30 daysThe percent of adolescents in grades 9-12 who used marijuana in the past 30 daysThe percent of adolescents in grades 9-12 who drank any alcohol in the past 30 daysThe percent of adolescents in grades 9-12 who binge drank in the past 30 daysThe percent of adolescents in grades 9-12 who misused any prescription medications in the past 30 daysThe percent of adults who consumed alcohol in the past 30 daysThe percent of adults who binge drank in the past 30 daysThe percent of adults who used marijuana in the past 30 daysData Sources:The Vermont Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) is part of a national school-based surveillance system conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The YRBS monitors health risk behaviors that contribute to the leading causes of death and disability among youth and young adults.The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is a telephone survey conducted annually among adults 18 and older. The Vermont BRFSS is completed by the Vermont Department of Health in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).Notes:Prevalence estimates and trends for the 2021 Vermont YRBS were likely impacted by significant factors unique to 2021, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the delay of the survey administration period resulting in a younger population completing the survey. Students who participated in the 2021 YRBS may have had a different educational and social experience compared to previous participants. Disruptions, including remote learning, lack of social interactions, and extracurricular activities, are likely reflected in the survey results. As a result, no trend data is included in the 2021 report and caution should be used when interpreting and comparing the 2021 results to other years.The Vermont Department of Health (VDH) seeks to promote destigmatizing and equitable language. While the VDH uses the term "cannabis" to reflect updated terminology, the data sources referenced in this data brief use the term "marijuana" to refer to cannabis. Prescription Drugs Indicators:The average daily MMEThe average day's supplyThe average day's supply for opioid analgesic prescriptionsThe number of prescriptionsThe percent of the population receiving at least one prescriptionThe percent of prescriptionsThe proportion of opioid analgesic prescriptionsThe rate of prescriptions per 100 residentsData Source:The Vermont Prescription Monitoring System (VPMS) is an electronic data system that collects information on Schedule II-IV controlled substance prescriptions dispensed by pharmacies. VPMS proactively safeguards public health and safety while supporting the appropriate use of controlled substances. The program helps healthcare providers improve patient care. VPMS data is also a health statistics tool that is used to monitor statewide trends in the dispensing of prescriptions.Treatment Indicators:The number of times a new substance use disorder is diagnosed (Medicaid recipients index events)The number of times substance use disorder treatment is started within 14 days of diagnosis (Medicaid recipients initiation events)The number of times two or more treatment services are provided within 34 days of starting treatment (Medicaid recipients engagement events)The percent of times substance use disorder treatment is started within 14 days of diagnosis (Medicaid recipients initiation rate)The percent of times two or more treatment services are provided within 34 days of starting treatment (Medicaid recipients engagement rate)The MOUD treatment rate per 10,000 peopleThe number of people who received MOUD treatmentData Source:Vermont Medicaid ClaimsThe Vermont Prescription Monitoring System (VPMS)Substance Abuse Treatment Information System (SATIS)

Analysis of ‘Drug Consumptions (UCI)’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/obeykhadija/drug-consumptions-uci on 28 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

Context

Data Set Information:

Database contains records for 1885 respondents. For each respondent 12 attributes are known: Personality measurements which include NEO-FFI-R (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness), BIS-11 (impulsivity), and ImpSS (sensation seeking), level of education, age, gender, country of residence and ethnicity. All input attributes are originally categorical and are quantified. After quantification values of all input features can be considered as real-valued. In addition, participants were questioned concerning their use of 18 legal and illegal drugs (alcohol, amphetamines, amyl nitrite, benzodiazepine, cannabis, chocolate, cocaine, caffeine, crack, ecstasy, heroin, ketamine, legal highs, LSD, methadone, mushrooms, nicotine and volatile substance abuse and one fictitious drug (Semeron) which was introduced to identify over-claimers. For each drug they have to select one of the answers: never used the drug, used it over a decade ago, or in the last decade, year, month, week, or day.

Detailed description of database and process of data quantification are presented in E. Fehrman, A. K. Muhammad, E. M. Mirkes, V. Egan and A. N. Gorban, "The Five Factor Model of personality and evaluation of drug consumption risk.," arXiv [Web Link], 2015 Paper above solve binary classification problem for all drugs. For most of drugs sensitivity and specificity are greater than 75%

Since all of the features have been quantified into real values please refer to the link to the original dataset to get more clarity on categorical variables. For example, for EScore (extraversion) 9 people scored 55 which corresponds to a quantified (real) value of in the dataset 2.57309. I have also converted some variables back into their categorical values which are included in the drug_consumption.csv file Original Dataset

Content

Feature Attributes for Quantified Data: 1. ID: is a number of records in an original database. Cannot be related to the participant. It can be used for reference only. 2. Age (Real) is the age of participant 3. Gender: Male or Female 4. Education: level of education of participant 5. Country: country of origin of the participant 6. Ethnicity: ethnicity of participant 7. Nscore (Real) is NEO-FFI-R Neuroticism 8. Escore (Real) is NEO-FFI-R Extraversion 9. Oscore (Real) is NEO-FFI-R Openness to experience. 10. Ascore (Real) is NEO-FFI-R Agreeableness. 11. Cscore (Real) is NEO-FFI-R Conscientiousness. 12. Impulsive (Real) is impulsiveness measured by BIS-11 13. SS (Real) is sensation seeing measured by ImpSS 14. Alcohol: alcohol consumption 15. Amphet: amphetamines consumption 16. Amyl: nitrite consumption 17. Benzos: benzodiazepine consumption 18. Caff: caffeine consumption 19. Cannabis: marijuana consumption 20. Choc: chocolate consumption 21. Coke: cocaine consumption 22. Crack: crack cocaine consumption 23. Ecstasy: ecstasy consumption 24. Heroin: heroin consumption 25. Ketamine: ketamine consumption 26. Legalh: legal highs consumption 27. LSD: LSD consumption 28. Meth: methadone consumption 29. Mushroom: magic mushroom consumption 30. Nicotine: nicotine consumption 31. Semer: class of fictitious drug Semeron consumption (i.e. control) 32. VSA: class of volatile substance abuse consumption

Rating's for Drug Use: - CL0 Never Used - CL1 Used over a Decade Ago - CL2 Used in Last Decade - CL3 Used in Last Year 59 - CL4 Used in Last Month - CL5 Used in Last Week - CL6 Used in Last Day

Acknowledgements

1. Elaine Fehrman, Men's Personality Disorder and National Women's Directorate, Rampton Hospital, Retford, Nottinghamshire, DN22 0PD, UK, Elaine.Fehrman@nottshc.nhs.uk

2. Vincent Egan, Department of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK, Vincent.Egan@nottingham.ac.uk

3. Evgeny M. Mirkes Department of Mathematics, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK, em322@le.ac.uk

Inspiration

Problem which can be solved: - Seven class classifications for each drug separately. - Problem can be transformed to binary classification by union of part of classes into one new class. For example, "Never Used", "Used over a Decade Ago" form class "Non-user" and all other classes form class "User". - The best binarization of classes for each attribute. - Evaluation of risk to be drug consumer for each drug.

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

Update — December 7, 2014. – Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is not working for many reasons, for example: 1. Incorrect in their foundations (paradox): hierarchical levels of evidence are supported by opinions (i.e., lowest strength of evidence according to EBM) instead of real data collected from different types of study designs (i.e., evidence). http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1122534 2. The effect of criminal practices by pharmaceutical companies is only possible because of the complicity of others: healthcare systems, professional associations, governmental and academic institutions. Pharmaceutical companies also corrupt at the personal level, politicians and political parties are on their payroll, medical professionals seduced by different types of gifts in exchange of prescriptions (i.e., bribery) which very likely results in patients not receiving the proper treatment for their disease, many times there is no such thing: healthy persons not needing pharmacological treatments of any kind are constantly misdiagnosed and treated with unnecessary drugs. Some medical professionals are converted in K.O.L. which is only a puppet appearing on stage to spread lies to their peers, a person supposedly trained to improve the well-being of others, now deceits on behalf of pharmaceutical companies. Probably the saddest thing is that many honest doctors are being misled by these lies created by the rules of pharmaceutical marketing instead of scientific, medical, and ethical principles. Interpretation of EBM in this context was not anticipated by their creators. “The main reason we take so many drugs is that drug companies don’t sell drugs, they sell lies about drugs.” ―Peter C. Gøtzsche “doctors and their organisations should recognise that it is unethical to receive money that has been earned in part through crimes that have harmed those people whose interests doctors are expected to take care of. Many crimes would be impossible to carry out if doctors weren’t willing to participate in them.” —Peter C Gøtzsche, The BMJ, 2012, Big pharma often commits corporate crime, and this must be stopped. Pending (Colombia): Health Promoter Entities (In Spanish: EPS ―Empresas Promotoras de Salud).

1. Misinterpretations New technologies or concepts are difficult to understand in the beginning, it doesn’t matter their simplicity, we need to get used to new tools aimed to improve our professional practice. Probably the best explanation is here in these videos (credits to Antonio Villafaina for sharing these videos with me). English https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ&w=420&h=315 Spanish https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DApozQBrlhU&w=420&h=315 ----------------------- Hypothesis: hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine are wrong Dear Editor, I have data to support the hypothesis described in the title of this letter. Before rejecting the null hypothesis I would like to ask the following open question:Could you support with data that hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine are correct? (1,2) Additional explanation to this question: – Only respond to this question attaching publicly available raw data.– Be aware that more than a question this is a challenge: I have data (i.e., evidence) which is contrary to classic (i.e., McMaster) or current (i.e., Oxford) hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine. An important part of this data (but not all) is publicly available. References
2. Ramirez, Jorge H (2014): The EBM challenge. figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1135873
3. The EBM Challenge Day 1: No Answers. Competing interests: I endorse the principles of open data in human biomedical research Read this letter on The BMJ – August 13, 2014.http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3725/rr/762595Re: Greenhalgh T, et al. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ 2014; 348: g3725. _ Fileset contents Raw data: Excel archive: Raw data, interactive figures, and PubMed search terms. Google Spreadsheet is also available (URL below the article description). Figure 1. Unadjusted (Fig 1A) and adjusted (Fig 1B) PubMed publication trends (01/01/1992 to 30/06/2014). Figure 2. Adjusted PubMed publication trends (07/01/2008 to 29/06/2014) Figure 3. Google search trends: Jan 2004 to Jun 2014 / 1-week periods. Figure 4. PubMed publication trends (1962-2013) systematic reviews and meta-analysis, clinical trials, and observational studies.
   Figure 5. Ramirez, Jorge H (2014): Infographics: Unpublished US phase 3 clinical trials (2002-2014) completed before Jan 2011 = 50.8%. figshare.http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1121675 Raw data: "13377 studies found for: Completed | Interventional Studies | Phase 3 | received from 01/01/2002 to 01/01/2014 | Worldwide". This database complies with the terms and conditions of ClinicalTrials.gov: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/about-site/terms-conditions Supplementary Figures (S1-S6). PubMed publication delay in the indexation processes does not explain the descending trends in the scientific output of evidence-based medicine. Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the following persons for providing valuable concepts in data visualization and infographics:
4. Maria Fernanda Ramírez. Professor of graphic design. Universidad del Valle. Cali, Colombia.
5. Lorena Franco. Graphic design student. Universidad del Valle. Cali, Colombia. Related articles by this author (Jorge H. Ramírez)
6. Ramirez JH. Lack of transparency in clinical trials: a call for action. Colomb Med (Cali) 2013;44(4):243-6. URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24892242
7. Ramirez JH. Re: Evidence based medicine is broken (17 June 2014). http://www.bmj.com/node/759181
8. Ramirez JH. Re: Global rules for global health: why we need an independent, impartial WHO (19 June 2014). http://www.bmj.com/node/759151
9. Ramirez JH. PubMed publication trends (1992 to 2014): evidence based medicine and clinical practice guidelines (04 July 2014). http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3725/rr/759895 Recommended articles
10. Greenhalgh Trisha, Howick Jeremy,Maskrey Neal. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ 2014;348:g3725
11. Spence Des. Evidence based medicine is broken BMJ 2014; 348:g22
12. Schünemann Holger J, Oxman Andrew D,Brozek Jan, Glasziou Paul, JaeschkeRoman, Vist Gunn E et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies BMJ 2008; 336:1106
13. Lau Joseph, Ioannidis John P A, TerrinNorma, Schmid Christopher H, OlkinIngram. The case of the misleading funnel plot BMJ 2006; 333:597
14. Moynihan R, Henry D, Moons KGM (2014) Using Evidence to Combat Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment: Evaluating Treatments, Tests, and Disease Definitions in the Time of Too Much. PLoS Med 11(7): e1001655. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001655
15. Katz D. A-holistic view of evidence based medicinehttp://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2014/05/02/a-holistic-view-of-evidence-based-medicine/ ---