Survey of herbal cannabis (marijuana) use in rheumatology clinic attenders with a rheumatologist confirmed diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cannabinoids may hold potential for the management of rheumatic pain. Arthritis, often self-reported, is commonly cited as the reason for the use of medicinal herbal cannabis (marijuana). We have examined the prevalence of marijuana use among 1000 consecutive rheumatology patients with a rheumatologist-confirmed diagnosis and compared in an exploratory manner the clinical characteristics of medicinal users and nonusers. Current marijuana use, medicinal or recreational, was reported by 38 patients (3.8%; 95% CI: 2.8-5.2). Ever use of marijuana for medical purposes was reported by 4.3% (95% CI: 3.2-5.7), with 28 (2.8%; 95% CI: 1.9-4.0) reporting current medicinal use. Current medicinal users had a spectrum of rheumatic conditions, with over half diagnosed with osteoarthritis. Medicinal users were younger, more likely unemployed or disabled, and reported poorer global health. Pain report and opioid use was greater for users, but they had similar physician global assessment of disease status compared with nonusers. Medicinal users were more likely previous recreational users, with approximately 40% reporting concurrent recreational use. Therefore, less than 3% of rheumatology patients reported current use of medicinal marijuana. This low rate of use in patients with a rheumatologist-confirmed diagnosis is in stark contrast to the high rates of severe arthritis frequently reported by medicinal marijuana users, especially in Canada. Familiarity with marijuana as a recreational product may explain use for some as disease status was similar for both groups.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".