↓ Skip to main content

Candyflipping and Other Combinations: Identifying Drug–Drug Combinations from an Online Forum

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
14 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
20 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Candyflipping and Other Combinations: Identifying Drug–Drug Combinations from an Online Forum
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00135
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Chary, David Yi, Alex F. Manini

Abstract

Novel psychoactive substances (NPS) refer to synthetic compounds or derivatives of more widely known substances of abuse that have emerged over the last two decades. Case reports suggest that users combine substances to achieve desired psychotropic experiences while reducing dysphoria and unpleasant somatic effects. However, the pattern of combining NPS has not been studied on a large scale. Here, we show that posts discussing NPS describe combining nootropics with sedative-hypnotics and stimulants with plant hallucinogens or psychiatric medications. Discussions that mention sedative-hypnotics most commonly also mention hallucinogens and stimulants. We analyzed 20 years of publicly available posts from Lycaeum, an Internet forum dedicated to sharing information about psychoactive substance use. We used techniques from natural language processing and machine learning to identify NPS and correlate patterns of co-mentions of substances across posts. We found that conversations mentioning synthetic hallucinogens tended to divide into those mentioning hallucinogens derived from amphetamine and those derived from ergot. Conversations that mentioned synthetic hallucinogens tended not to mention plant hallucinogens. Conversations that mention bath salts commonly mention sedative-hypnotics or nootropics while more canonical stimulants are discussed with plant hallucinogens and psychiatric medications. All types of substances are frequently compared to MDMA, DMT, cocaine, or atropine when trying to describe their effects. Our results provide the largest analysis to date of online descriptions of patterns of polysubstance use and further demonstrate the utility of social media in learning about trends in substance use. We anticipate this work to lead to a more detailed analysis of the knowledge contained online about the patterns of usage and effects of novel psychoactive substances.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Master 6 7%
Professor 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 31 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 11%
Chemistry 4 5%
Engineering 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 36 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 164. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 June 2023.
All research outputs
#247,151
of 25,337,969 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#170
of 12,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,625
of 332,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#5
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,337,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,522 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,220 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.