Subjective and Physiological Effects of Oromucosal Sprays Containing Cannabinoids (Nabiximols): Potentials and Limitations for Psychosis Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cannabis use is associated with a spectrum of effects including euphoria, relaxation, anxiety, perceptual alterations, paranoia, and impairments in attention and memory. Cannabis is made up of approximately 80 different cannabinoid compounds, which have synergistic or antagonistic effects on the principle active ingredient in cannabis, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The net overall effect of cannabis is thought to be related to the ratio of its composite constituents; in particular, the ratio of THC to cannabidiol (CBD). Since cannabinoids induce subjective and cognitive changes that share qualitative similarities with schizophrenia, cannabinoids have been used to model psychosis. Some limitations of cannabinoid models of psychosis include the relatively high variability in experiences between different individuals, the potential for inducing unwanted effects, such as toxic psychosis in study subjects, and the lack of data showing that effective anti-psychotic treatments can reverse the behavioural and cognitive/motor effects of cannabinoids. Nabiximols (Sativex®) is an oromucosal spray containing THC and CBD in an approximate 1:1 ratio. While not extensively studied, most studies confirm that nabiximols, despite the different route of administration and presence of CBD, have similar or slightly reduced subjective/cognitive effects compared to similar doses of oral THC. While the presence of CBD may have utility in some models, it is likely that the concentrations are not high enough to meaningfully affect those aspects important for psychosis research. This review suggests that while it may present an alternative to the use of oral THC, oromucosal nabiximols may not present substantial advantages for use in psychosis research.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".