Notice bibliographique
Résumé
There is international support for a standard tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) unit, which could improve the precision with which we understand, regulate and communicate dose-related risks and benefits to consumers. Implementing the standard THC unit in legal recreational cannabis markets would represent an important step forward. We appreciate the commentaries [1-4] which support our proposal for a standard THC unit [5] and raise insightful points for progressing with this initiative. Chester et al. [1] outline the importance of experimental cannabinoid studies for informing the standard tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) unit. Our proposal for a 5-mg THC unit was informed by experimental studies showing that this low dose produces intoxication in infrequent users with minimal risk of adverse acute effects [5]. Moving forward, experimental cannabinoid studies can quantify dose–response effects of THC unit consumption on acute harms and benefits, such as driving performance [6]. Experimental studies should include a wide range of THC unit doses to capture real-world consumption and contrasting directions of effect at low and high doses [2]. Volkow & Weiss [3] and the NIDA Cannabis Policy Research Workgroup [7] highlight the value of a standard THC unit for advancing the understanding of the long-term effects of cannabis use. Large-scale longitudinal cohort studies (e.g. the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study) are now enhancing time-line follow-back methods using pictorial assessment of cannabis type and quantity [8]. Where available, legal cannabis products with known standard THC unit content could increase precision when estimating the long-term effects of cannabis use on brain, cognitive and mental health outcomes throughout the life-span. Filbey [2] and Volkow & Weiss [3] suggest that standard units of dose could also be applied to medicinal use of cannabis and cannabinoids. We agree that this could be helpful for informing patients and clinicians if supported by robust scientific evidence. As the safety and efficacy of cannabinoids for medicinal purposes differ from effects during recreational use, care would be needed when communicating relative risks and benefits among different populations. As a priority, standard THC units should be implemented in legal recreational cannabis markets, such as those in Canada, Uruguay and some US states. As pointed out by Hammond [4], a standard THC unit would represent a considerable improvement to the status quo, despite differences in the time–course and effect profile of certain products [1]. Current dosing information for oral (mg THC) and inhaled (% THC) products are poorly understood by consumers [9] and are difficult to compare with each other. Listing the number of doses per package substantially improves consumer understanding [9] and fulfils the need for clearer dosing information [10]. In conclusion, a standard THC unit is necessary to advance and harmonize scientific research, product regulation and consumer understanding of cannabis use and its consequences. Implementing standard THC units in legal recreational cannabis markets would represent an important step towards this goal. None. T. F. is funded by a Senior Academic Fellowship from the Society for the Study of Addiction. The funder had no role in the writing of the report or the decision to submit for publication. Tom Freeman: Conceptualization-lead; writing-original draft-lead; writing-review & editing-equal. Valentina Lorenzetti: Conceptualization-supporting; writing-review & editing-equal.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,044 | 0,109 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,023 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,021 |
| Science ouverte | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,045 | 0,072 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,018 | 0,012 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».