Characteristics of patients with chronic pain accessing treatment with medical cannabis in Washington State
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to better understand the characteristics of chronic pain patients seeking treatment with medicinal cannabis (MC). DESIGN: Retrospective chart reviews of 139 patients (87 males, median age 47 years; 52 females, median age 48 years); all were legally qualified for MC use in Washington State. SETTING: Regional pain clinic staffed by university faculty. INCLUSION CRITERIA: age 18 years and older; having legally accessed MC treatment, with valid documentation in their medical records. All data were de-identified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Records were scored for multiple indicators, including time since initial MC authorization, qualifying condition(s), McGill Pain score, functional status, use of other analgesic modalities, including opioids, and patterns of use over time. RESULTS: Of 139 patients, 15 (11 percent) had prior authorizations for MC before seeking care in this clinic. The sample contained 236.4 patient-years of authorized MC use. Time of authorized use ranged from 11 days to 8.31 years (median of 1.12 years). Most patients were male (63 percent) yet female patients averaged 0.18 years longer authorized use. There were no other gender-specific trends or factors. Most patients (n = 123, 88 percent) had more than one pain syndrome present. Myofascial pain syndrome was the most common diagnosis (n = 114, 82 percent), followed by neuropathic pain (n = 89, 64 percent), discogenic back pain (n = 72, 51.7 percent), and osteoarthritis (n = 37, 26.6 percent). Other diagnoses included diabetic neuropathy, central pain syndrome, phantom pain, spinal cord injury, fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, HIV neuropathy, visceral pain, and malignant pain. In 51 (37 percent) patients, there were documented instances of major hurdles related to accessing MC, including prior physicians unwilling to authorize use, legal problems related to MC use, and difficulties in finding an affordable and consistent supply of MC. CONCLUSIONS: Data indicate that males and females access MC at approximately the same rate, with similar median authorization times. Although the majority of patient records documented significant symptom alleviation with MC, major treatment access and delivery barriers remain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".