MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy of two cannabis‐based medicinal extracts for relief of central neuropathic pain from brachial plexus avulsion: results of a randomised controlled trial

2003· article· en· W2110032138 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaPlaceboBrachial plexusNeuropathic painCannabidiolCannabisCrossover studyOxycodoneRandomized controlled trialSurgeryOpioidInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Avulsion of nerve rootlets from the spinal cord following traction injuries to the brachial plexus frequently produces a highly characteristic pain syndrome. Constant spontaneous crushing and burning pain is felt in the distal part of the anaesthetic limb, frequently accompanied by shooting pain. It is not uncommon for the pain to persist for many years. The consistency of description between subjects coupled with the anatomical precision of the diagnosis provides a remarkable human model of central neuropathic pain. Opioids, anticonvulsants and tricyclic antidepressants are all used in the empirical management of this condition. They are partially effective at best and there is only anecdotal evidence to support their use. Many of our patients have given us spontaneous reports of the efficacy of ‘street’ cannabis. This has led us to test two cannabis-based whole plant medicinal extracts administered via oromucosal spray to patients with this condition. Forty-eight patients were enrolled. They all had at least one brachial plexus root avulsion for at least 18 months. They also had pain of at least 4 out of an 11-point box scale at the time of enrolment. The study was a randomised double-blind crossover trial consisting of three 2-week periods following a run-in period of 7–24 days. Patients continued on all previous stable medications including analgesics. During each 2-week period, subjects received in random order either placebo, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) 25 mg.ml or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol 25 mg.ml with cannabidiol (THC:CBD) 25 mg.ml, given as patient-activated oromucosal 100-μl sprays. Eleven-point box scales for pain and sleep, short form McGill, visual analogue scale, general health questionnaire-12, sleep disturbance and pain disability index were all recorded. Table 1 shows a summary of the results at week two of each of the study periods. Both the THC and THC:CBD extracts decreased pain and improved sleep. The effects were moderate although mostly statistically significant. Patients had not maximally titrated their doses at the end of the 2-week study periods. In addition, they remained on their pre-existing analgesic therapy throughout the study. A longer study period and use of cannabis-based medicinal extracts as the sole analgesic may well show a bigger analgesic effect. However, given the refractory nature of the pain in this patient group, this study shows that cannabis-based medicinal extracts represent a significant advance in treatment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it