Comparing Medical and Recreational Cannabis Users on Socio-Demographic, Substance and Medication Use, and Health and Disability Characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While recreational cannabis use is common, medical cannabis programs have proliferated across North America, including a federal program in Canada. Few comparisons of medical and recreational cannabis users (RCUs) exist; this study compared these groups on key characteristics. METHODS: Data came from a community-recruited sample of formally approved medical cannabis users (MCUs; n = 53), and a sub-sample of recreational cannabis users (RCUs; n = 169) from a representative adult survey in Ontario (Canada). Samples were telephone-surveyed on identical measures, including select socio-demographic, substance and medication use, and health and disability measures. Based on initial bivariate comparisons, multivariate logistical regression with a progressive adjustment approach was performed to assess independent predictors of group status. RESULTS: In bivariate analyses, older age, lower household income, lower alcohol use, higher cocaine, prescription opioid, depression and anxiety medication use, and lower health and disability status were significantly associated with medical cannabis use. In the multivariate analysis, final model, household income, alcohol use, and disability levels were associated with medical cannabis use. Conclusions/Scientific Significance: Compared to RCUs, medical users appear to be mainly characterized by factors negatively influencing their overall health status. Future studies should investigate the actual impact and net benefits of medical cannabis use on these health problems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".