MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2544205089 · doi:10.18433/j3f31d

Comparison of Cannabinoid Concentrations in Plasma, Oral Fluid and Urine in Occasional Cannabis Smokers After Smoking Cannabis Cigarette

2016· article· en· W2544205089 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amélie Marsot, Christine Audebert, Laurence Attolini, Bruno Lacarelle, Joëlle Micallef, Olivier Blin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacokineticsUrineCmaxCannabisChemistryDronabinolCannabinoidPlaceboCannabinolTetrahydrocannabinolPharmacologyOral administrationMarijuana smokingChromatographyCannabidiolMedicineSubstance abuseBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: A randomized cross-over, double blind placebo controlled study of smoked cannabis was carried out on occasional cannabis smokers. The objective of this research was to describe the pharmacokinetic parameters of THC and its metabolites in plasma, oral fluid and urine, from samples obtained simultaneously to provide estimations of THC and metabolites concentrations after smoking a cannabis cigarette. METHODS: Blood, oral fluid and urine samples were collected until up to 72 h after smoking the cannabis cigarette (4% of delta-9-tetrathydrocannabinol (THC)). THC, 11-OH-THC and THC-COOH were analyzed by gas-chromatography-mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated from these data. RESULTS: Eighteen male healthy adults participated in the study. In total, 560 plasma, 288 oral fluid and 448 urine samples were quantified for cannabinoids. Plasma, oral fluid and urine pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated. A wide range of median THC Cmax (1.6-160.0 µg/L and 55.4-123120.0 µg/L in plasma and oral fluid, respectively), 11-OH-THC Cmax (0-11.1 µg/L in plasma) and THC-COOH Cmax (1.0-56.3 µg/L in plasma) was observed. When expressed as a percentage of the total available THC dose, and corrected for molar equivalents, mean percentage of total THC dose excreted was 1.9 +/-2.5 % with range of 0.2-7.5%. This high inter-individual variability was also observed on other calculated pharmacokinetic parameters. CONCLUSION: Prediction of plasma THC concentration from THC oral fluid concentration or from THC-COOH urinary concentrations is not feasible due to the large variations observed. The results from this study support the assumption that a positive oral fluid THC result or a positive urine fluid result are indicative of a recent cannabis exposure. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see "For Readers") may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue's contents page.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical SciencesSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207