Guidelines for the Use of Cannabinoid Compounds in Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide clinicians with guidelines for the use of cannabinoid compounds in the treatment of chronic pain. METHODS: Publications indexed from 1990 to 2005 in the National Library of Medicine Index Medicus were searched through PubMed. A consensus concerning these guidelines was achieved by the authors through review and discussion. RESULTS: There are few clinical trials, case reports or case series concerning the use of cannabinoid compounds in the treatment of chronic pain. There are no randomized clinical trials examining the use of herbal cannabis in the treatment of chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS: A practical approach to the treatment of chronic pain with cannabinoid compounds is presented. Specific suggestions about the off-label dosing of nabilone (Cesamet, Valeant Canada limitee/Limited) and dronabinol (Marinol, Solvay Pharma Inc, Canada) in the treatment of chronic pain are provided.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
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".