Medicinal and Recreational Marijuana Use by Patients Infected with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to describe and compare the prevalence, predictors and patterns of marijuana use, specifically medicinal marijuana use among patients with HIV in Ontario, Canada. Any marijuana use in the year prior to interview and self-defined medicinal use were evaluated. A cross-sectional multicenter survey and retrospective chart review were conducted between 1999 and 2001 to evaluate overall drug utilization in HIV, including marijuana use. HIV-positive adults were identified through the HIV Ontario Observational Database (HOOD), 104 consenting patients were interviewed. Forty-three percent of patients reported any marijuana use, while 29% reported medicinal use. Reasons for use were similar by gender although a significantly higher number of women used marijuana for pain management. Overall, the most commonly reported reason for medicinal marijuana use was appetite stimulation/weight gain. Whereas male gender and history of intravenous drug use were predictive of any marijuana use, only household income less than $20,000 CDN was associated with medicinal marijuana use. Age, gender, HIV clinical status, antiretroviral use, and history of intravenous drug use were not significant predictors of medicinal marijuana use. Despite the frequency of medicinal use, minimal changes in the pattern of marijuana use upon HIV diagnosis were reported with 80% of current medicinal users also indicating recreational consumption. Although a large proportion of patients report medicinal marijuana use, overlap between medical and recreational consumption is substantial. The role of poverty in patient choice of medicinal marijuana despite access to care and the large proportion of women using marijuana for pain constitute areas for further study.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".