1083 CANNABIS (MARIJUANA) USE IN MEN WITH CHRONIC PROSTATITIS / CHRONIC PELVIC PAIN SYNDROME
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyInfections/Inflammation of the Genitourinary Tract: Prostate & Genitalia1 Apr 20121083 CANNABIS (MARIJUANA) USE IN MEN WITH CHRONIC PROSTATITIS / CHRONIC PELVIC PAIN SYNDROME Dean Tripp, J. Curtis Nickel, Katz Laura, Jessica V. Ginting, Ware Mark, and Darcy Santor Dean TrippDean Tripp Kingston, Canada More articles by this author , J. Curtis NickelJ. Curtis Nickel Kingston, Canada More articles by this author , Katz LauraKatz Laura Kingston, Canada More articles by this author , Jessica V. GintingJessica V. Ginting Kingston, Canada More articles by this author , Ware MarkWare Mark Montreal, Canada More articles by this author , and Darcy SantorDarcy Santor Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.1190AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES To examine the prevalence of cannabis use among men with CP/CPPS, to estimate the dose size and frequency of cannabis use, and to describe the patient reported indications for its use in this population. METHODS Parallel online and clinic questionnaire surveys were conducted to assess cannabis use among men with CP/CPPS. As a check on study generalizability, comparisons between the online data (n=365) and clinic data (n=60) showed no clinically meaningful differences in the outcome variables of quality of life (QoL), suicidal ideation, pain and urinary symptoms were evident between these groups. RESULTS Forty nine percent of this sample reported cannabis use (n=206). Of those reporting cannabis use, 29% (n=59) indicated use for pain relief (pain users) and 71% (n=147) for recreation. The pain users (mean age=38.26±13.78), were younger than recreational users (42.37±12.18) and individuals who reported never using cannabis (45.29±13.73)(p=.001). More pain users reported cannabis was of pain reduction benefit in comparison to recreational users (Chisq=3.83, p=.05). No differences were found between recreational and pain users in degree of side effects (Chisq=4.43, p=.22), reasons for stopping (Chisq=4.84, p=.18), or use frequency (Chisq=5.48, p=.07). There were no differences in dose smoked between the pain and recreational users (Chisq=5.80, p=.12), but a difference was found in dose eaten between these two groups with 20% of pain users reporting consuming more than 1 gram per dose versus only 7% of recreational users reporting consuming this dosage. (Chisq=12.51, p=.002). Pain users reported more pain (F=4.04, p=.05), poorer CP/CPPS QoL/impact (F=8.61, p=.004), and more suicidal thoughts (F=6.59, p=.01) than recreational users. CONCLUSIONS Cannabis use is prevalent in men reporting CP/CPPS (49%), but not necessarily used for CP/CPPS symptoms (used for pain in only 29% users). It is important that physicians planning a therapeutic strategy for patients with CP/CPPS know the relevance of this data and question their patients on their use (and effect/impact on symptoms) of marijuana/cannabis. Although this study cannot qualify the benefit or hazard of cannabis use, this is the first study to document the prevalence and patterns of cannabis use in a CP/CPPS population. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e439-e440 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Dean Tripp Kingston, Canada More articles by this author J. Curtis Nickel Kingston, Canada More articles by this author Katz Laura Kingston, Canada More articles by this author Jessica V. Ginting Kingston, Canada More articles by this author Ware Mark Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Darcy Santor Ottawa, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".