Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Cannabis is one of the earliest cultivated plants. Cannabis of industrial utility and culinary value is generally termed as hemp. Conversely, cannabis that is bred for medical, spiritual and recreational purposes is called marijuana. The female marijuana plant produces a significant quantity of bio- and psychoactive phytocannabinoids, which regained the spotlight with the discovery of the endocannabinoid system of the animals in the early 90's. Nevertheless, marijuana is surrounded by controversies, debates and misconceptions related to its taxonomic classification, forensic identification, medical potential, legalization and its long-term health consequences. METHOD: In the first part, we provide an in-depth review of the botany and taxonomy of Cannabis. We then overview the biosynthesis of phytocannabinoids within the glandular trichomes with emphasis on the role of peculiar plastids in the production of the secreted material. We also compile the analytical methods used to determine the phytocannabinoid composition of glandular trichomes. In the second part, we revisit the psychobiology and molecular medicine of marijuana. RESULTS & CONCLUSION: We summarize our current knowledge on the recreational use of cannabis with respect to the modes of consumption, short-term effects, chronic health consequences and cannabis use disorder. Next, we overview the molecular targets of a dozen major and minor bioactive cannabinoids in the body. This helps us introduce the endocannabinoid system in an unprecedented detail: its up-todate molecular biology, pharmacology, physiology and medical significance, and beyond. In conclusion, we offer an unbiased survey about cannabis to help better weigh its medical value versus the associated risks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".