MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4406274787 · doi:10.1111/add.16758

Commentary on Borodovsky <i>et al</i>.: Enhancing research on THC quantification—Consumer awareness through accurate labelling

2025· article· en· W4406274787 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rachel Lees, Tom P. Freeman

Notice bibliographique

RevueAddiction · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCannabisConsumption (sociology)LabellingOddsPublic healthEnvironmental healthMedicineSet (abstract data type)PsychologyDronabinolPsychiatryCannabinoidComputer scienceLogistic regression

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Recent advances in the quantification of Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) have the potential to increase our understanding of the effects of cannabis use on health. Policies and regulation supporting accurate and accessible THC content labelling will advance scientific progress and give consumers better control over their use. Borodovsky and colleagues [4] found that higher daily THC consumption was associated with a greater number of CUD symptoms and higher odds for meeting clinical thresholds for CUD in a large sample of United States (US) respondents. This represents an important step in our ability to estimate dose-related risk of a key public health outcome that occurs in approximately one in five people who use cannabis [5]. To calculate THC consumption in their comprehensive online survey, participants reported their daily quantity of cannabis use over the past week across a range of product types and estimated the potency of the cannabis that they had used. Both quantity and potency of cannabis are needed to estimate THC consumption, and both have been linked to important health outcomes [1, 6, 7]. Overlooking these factors in previous research may have affected our understanding of the associations between cannabis and health outcomes such as CUD. However, estimating quantity and potency is not straightforward and requires more in depth questioning than estimating frequency alone. Several assessments, including Borodovsky and colleagues' [4] work, have set out to comprehensively assess THC consumption, however, several factors may influence the accuracy of estimation of these data. Across the United States, there is a complex picture of differing legal frameworks surrounding the availability and sale of medicinal and/or recreational cannabis. Outside of the United States, most people who use cannabis do so in a setting in which cannabis is not legally sold or purchased. In legal markets, accurate information about cannabis products including quantity and potency can be included on labelling and packaging. In reality, this is not always the case, as cannabis products are not always correctly labelled [8]. Moreover, current labelling may not be accessible enough for consumers to interpret and retain this information. Consequently, many people who use cannabis report that they are not aware of the THC quantity in the products they consume, even in legal markets [9, 10]. Moreover, where cannabis is purchased illegally, consumers may lack accurate information on the cannabis they are purchasing. Researchers often need to rely on participants' recall of this information to estimate their THC consumption and, therefore, this may introduce bias to our estimates. However, recent research indicates that THC consumption can be estimated by collecting data on product type and its average THC concentration, together with amount and frequency of use, with strong validity according to urinary THC concentrations [11]. Nevertheless, we need to understand the influence of contextual factors on participant accuracy of estimation of their THC consumption, as well as encourage better labelling of cannabis products to improve consumers' knowledge. Furthermore, accurate labelling of products will enable individuals who use cannabis to respond to knowledge generated by research and to any future guidelines for safer use based on THC, as Borodovsky and colleagues [4] recommend. One approach could be through labelling packaging with standard THC units [12] in the same way that alcohol products are labelled with alcohol units in many jurisdictions around the world. To maximise impact on public health, manufacturers and relevant legal bodies should incorporate such measures on accessible labelling for cannabis products, so that those who would like to monitor their use are able to do so accurately. For example, Health Canada recently sought public guidance on simplifying THC labelling on products, and the legislative review of the Cannabis Act recommended that a ‘standard dose’ or ‘unit dose’ should be prioritized and accompanied by regulatory amendments to require it as an element on cannabis product labels [13]. If successfully implemented, such regulation could enhance communication and consumer knowledge about THC. Increasing the accuracy and accessibility of information available around quantity and potency of cannabis products has the potential to both improve the accuracy of our research on CUD as well as to enable consumers to make more informed choices to reduce their risk. None. None. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed for this commentary.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,494
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,626

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,085
Tête enseignante GPT0,434
Écart entre enseignants0,349 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAddictionMême sujetCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchTravaux en français237 207