Unintentional Pediatric Cannabis Exposures After Legalization of Recreational Cannabis in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
approach to legalizing recreational cannabis.Initially, the sale of cannabis flower, seeds, and oils was permitted, and after 1 year, this expanded to a wider variety of products, including cannabis edibles.4 We evaluated changes in pediatric emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations due to cannabis exposures associated with these changes. MethodsThis repeated cross-sectional study was authorized under section 45 of Ontario's Personal Health Information Protection Act and approved by the privacy and legal office of ICES (formerly the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences).Section 45 allows ICES to collect personal health information without consent for the purpose of health system evaluation and improvement.We followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline for cross-sectional studies.We identified all ED visits and related hospitalizations due to cannabis exposures among 2.35 million children aged 0 to 9 years in Ontario, Canada, between January 1, 2016, and March 31, 2021.We compared trends and characteristics of ED visits over 3 periods: prelegalization (January 2016-September 2018); the period after legalization of flower products, or period 1 (October 2018-January 2020); and the period after commercial edibles became available, or period 2 (February 2020-March 2021).Poisson models were used to calculate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for change in monthly rates of visits.Health administrative data sets were linked using encoded identifiers and analyzed at ICES (eMethods in the Supplement).All tests of significance were 2-sided, and P values < .05were considered statistically significant.Data analysis was conducted from June through August 2021 using Stata statistical software version 17.0 (StataCorp). ResultsThere were 522 ED visits due to cannabis exposures among children (mean [SD] age, 3.8 [2.6] years; 281 visits [53.8%] among boys) including 81 visits during prelegalization, 124 visits during period 1, and 317 visits during period 2. The proportion of cannabis-related ED visits with hospitalization increased significantly after the introduction of edibles (122 visits [38.5%] during period 2 vs 29 visits [23.4%] during period 1 and 20 visits [24.7%] during the prelegalization period; P = .002).There were 19 ED visits (3.6%) with intensive care unit admission; no deaths were recorded (Table ).Rates of ED visits associated with cannabis exposures increased from January 2016 to March 2021 (Figure).Period 1 (IRR, 3.13; 95% CI, 2.37-4.16;P < .001)and period 2 (IRR, 9.12; 95% CI, 7.15-11.65;P < .001)were associated with increases in visits compared with the prelegalization period, + Supplemental content
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 | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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 ».