Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the history and pharmacology of cannabis in relation to current scientific knowledge concerning actual and potential therapeutic uses of cannabis preparations and pure cannabinoids. METHODS: The literature on therapeutic uses of cannabis and cannabinoids was assessed with respect to type of study design, quality and variability of data, independent replications by the same or other investigators, magnitude of effects, comparison with other available treatments and reported adverse effects. The results of this review were also compared with those of major international reviews of this topic in the past five years. CONCLUSIONS: Pure tetrahydrocannabinol and several analogues have shown significant therapeutic benefits in the relief of nausea and vomiting, and stimulation of appetite in patients with wasting syndrome. Recent evidence clearly demonstrates analgesic and anti-spasticity effects that will probably prove to be clinically useful. Reduction of intraocular pressure in glaucoma and bronchodilation in asthma are not sufficiently strong, long lasting or reliable to provide a valid basis for therapeutic use. The anticonvulsant effect of cannabidiol is sufficiently promising to warrant further properly designed clinical trials. There is still a major lack of long term pharmacokinetic data and information on drug interactions. For all the present and probable future uses, pure cannabinoids, administered orally, rectally or parenterally, have been shown to be effective, and they are free of the risks of chronic inflammatory disease of the airways and upper respiratory cancer that are associated with the smoking of crude cannabis. Smoking might be justified on compassionate grounds in terminally ill patients who are already accustomed to using cannabis in this manner. Future research will probably yield new synthetic analogues with better separation of therapeutic effects from undesired psychoactivity and other side effects, and with solubility properties that may permit topical administration in the eye, or aerosol inhalation for rapid systemic effect without the risks associated with smoke inhalation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".