Cannabidiol for the treatment of psychosis in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The management of psychosis in Parkinson's disease (PD) has been considered a great challenge for clinicians and there is a need for new pharmacological intervention. Previously an antipsychotic and neuroprotective effect of Cannabidiol (CBD) has been suggested. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to directly evaluate for the first time, the efficacy, tolerability and safety of CBD on PD patients with psychotic symptoms. This was an open-label pilot study. Six consecutive outpatients (four men and two women) with the diagnosis of PD and who had psychosis for at least 3 months were selected for the study. All patients received CBD in flexible dose (started with an oral dose of 150 mg/day) for 4 weeks, in addition to their usual therapy. The psychotic symptoms evaluated by the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and the Parkinson Psychosis Questionnaire showed a significant decrease under CBD treatment. CBD did not worsen the motor function and decreased the total scores of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale. No adverse effect was observed during the treatment. These preliminary data suggest that CBD may be effective, safe and well tolerated for the treatment of the psychosis in PD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".