MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1580703892 · doi:10.4137/sart.s25081

Cannabidiol as an Intervention for Addictive Behaviors: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

2015· review· en· W1580703892 on OpenAlexafffund
Mélissa Prud'homme, Romulus Cata, Didier Jutras‐Aswad

Bibliographic record

VenueSubstance Abuse Research and Treatment · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsCannabidiolAddictionCannabisIntervention (counseling)MedicinePsychiatryDrugPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drug addiction is a chronically relapsing disorder characterized by the compulsive desire to use drugs and a loss of control over consumption. Cannabidiol (CBD), the second most abundant component of cannabis, is thought to modulate various neuronal circuits involved in drug addiction. The goal of this systematic review is to summarize the available preclinical and clinical data on the impact of CBD on addictive behaviors. MEDLINE and PubMed were searched for English and French language articles published before 2015. In all, 14 studies were found, 9 of which were conducted on animals and the remaining 5 on humans. A limited number of preclinical studies suggest that CBD may have therapeutic properties on opioid, cocaine, and psychostimulant addiction, and some preliminary data suggest that it may be beneficial in cannabis and tobacco addiction in humans. Further studies are clearly necessary to fully evaluate the potential of CBD as an intervention for addictive disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations133
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSubstance Abuse Research and TreatmentSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207