Reassessment of the role of cannabinoids in the management of pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this article is to assess the role of cannabinoids in the treatment of acute and chronic pain in humans. RECENT FINDINGS: Very few clinical trials looking at the analgesic effects of cannabinoids in the acute pain settings have been performed. Three recent studies have evaluated the oral administration of synthetic cannabinoids in postoperative pain. At low doses cannabinoids are not different from placebo, whereas at high doses they may be associated with adverse effects or even worsening of pain intensity. In chronic pain patients, the safety and analgesic efficacy of a number of cannabinoid compounds have recently been evaluated in several clinical trials in several chronic pain conditions. While the small size of the trials and the relatively short duration of follow-up limits broad generalization, to date there is increasing evidence that cannabinoids are safe and effective for refractory chronic pain conditions including neuropathic pain associated with multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and peripheral neuropathy associated with HIV/AIDS. SUMMARY: The precise role of cannabinoids in pain treatment still needs further evaluation. Cannabinoid compounds may be more effective in the context of chronic neuropathic pain than for the management of acute pain.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".