A118 PATTERNS AND MOTIVATIONS FOR MARIJUANA USE AMONGST PATIENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marijuana contains over 60 compounds which interact with cannabinoid receptors throughout the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. This is the proposed mechanism by which marijuana exerts its effects as an analgesic, appetite stimulant, anti-emetic, and motility modulator. Self-medication for the alleviation of GI symptoms with marijuana is common. Despite its pending legalization, there is a paucity of Canadian data that summarizes the patterns and motivations behind marijuana use amongst patients with IBD. The purpose of this study is to investigate the patterns and motivations of marijuana use amongst patients with IBD. An electronic survey was used to assess 161 patients with IBD at a tertiary outpatient gastroenterology clinic. Patients completed the survey in clinic or at home using a web link. Exclusions: Age <18, incomplete surveys, or repeat surveys as evidenced by IP address. The short-inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (SIBDQ) was used to evaluate quality of life (QoL). Patterns of use. Amongst patients with UC and CD, 44/71 (62%) and 75/89 (84%) of patients report using at some point in their life with 25/71 (35%) and 45/89 (51%) using within <6 months, respectively. The most common route of use was inhalation 45/70 (64%). 37/70 (53%) report using at least once per week, with 17/37 (46%) within this group using daily. 16/70 (23%) reported a total duration of use <6 months. 35/70 (50%) have been using >5 years. Motivations for use amongst patients using within <6 months. 37/70 (53%) primarily use for recreation, 27/70 (39%) primarily use for treatment of symptoms, and 5/70 (7%) report using for both. For symptoms, common reasons for use included poor appetite in 15/32 (47%), abdominal pain/bloating in 14/32 (44%), diarrhea in 6/32 (19%), post-prandial discomfort in 6/32 (19%), and nausea in 3/32 (9%). 32/34 (94%) who use marijuana for symptoms agree that it helps. Amongst patients with CD or UC, there was no statistical significant difference between marijuana vs. non-marijuana users in mean SIBDQ scores. Marijuana use is common amongst IBD patients and will likely increase in the near future. Despite 94% of patients endorsing that marijuana helps with their symptoms, this does not translate into a better QoL when compared to non-users. Gastroenterologists are in a unique position to educate patients on the risks and benefits of marijuana use especially with the impending legalization and ongoing health claims from the marijuana industry. None
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".