Cannabinoids as therapeutic agents in cardiovascular disease: a tale of passions and illusions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In addition to their classical known effects, such as analgesia, impairment of cognition and learning and appetite enhancement, cannabinoids have also been related to the regulation of cardiovascular responses and implicated in cardiovascular pathology. Elevated levels of endocannabinoids have been related to the extreme hypotension associated with various forms of shock as well as to the cardiovascular abnormalities that accompany cirrhosis. In contrast, cannabinoids have also been associated with beneficial effects on the cardiovascular system, such as a protective role in atherosclerosis progression and in cerebral and myocardial ischaemia. In addition, it has also been suggested that the pharmacological manipulation of the endocannabinoid system may offer a novel approach to antihypertensive therapy. During the last decades, the tremendous increase in the understanding of the molecular basis of cannabinoid activity has encouraged many pharmaceutical companies to develop more potent synthetic cannabinoid analogues and antagonists, leading to an explosion of basic research and clinical trials. Consequently. not only the synthetic THC dronabinol (Marinol) and the synthetic THC analogue nabilone (Cesamet) have been approved in the United States, but also the standardized cannabis extract (Sativex) in Canada. At least three strategies can be foreseen in the future clinical use of cannabinoid-based drugs: (a) the use of CB(1) receptor antagonists, such as the recently approved rimonabant (b) the use of CB(2)-selective agonists, and (c) the use of inhibitors of endocannabinoid degradation. In this context, the present review examines the effects of cannabinoids and of the pharmacological manipulation of the endocannabinoid system, in cardiovascular pathophysiology.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".