A survey of cannabis (marijuana) use and self-reported benefit in men with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a chronic pelvic pain condition largely refractory to treatment. Cannabis (marijuana) use has been reported for a wide variety of chronic pain conditions, but no study has examined prevalence of cannabis use, symptom benefit or side effects, or frequency in CP/CPPS. METHODS: Participants were recruited from an outpatient CP/CPPS urology clinic (n = 98) and online through the Prostatitis Foundation website (n = 244). Participants completed questionnaires (demographics, CP/CPPS, depression, cannabis). RESULTS: The clinic sample included Canadian patients and the online sample included primarily American patients. Due to differences, groups were examined separately. Almost 50% of respondents reported using cannabis (clinic n = 49; online n = 89). Of the cannabis users, 36.8% of clinic and 75% of online respondents reported that it improved their symptoms. Most of the respondents (from the clinic and online groups) reported that cannabis improved their mood, pain, muscle spasms, and sleep. However, they did not note any improvements for weakness, fatigue, numbness, ambulation, and urination. Overall, the effectiveness of cannabis for CP/CPPS was "somewhat/very effective" (57% clinic; 63% online). There were no differences between side effects or choice of consumption and most reported using cannabis rarely. CONCLUSIONS: These are the first estimates in men suffering from CP/CPPS and suggest that while cannabis use is prevalent, its medical use and benefit are unknown. This is an understudied area and the benefit or hazard for cannabis use awaits 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".