Synthetic Cannabinoid Exposure in Adolescents Presenting for Emergency Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize the clinical picture and management of synthetic cannabinoid exposure in a cohort of adolescents. METHODS: Using the 45 participating sites of the Toxicology Investigators Consortium Registry, a North American database, we conducted an observational study of a prospectively collected cohort. We identified all adolescent (12-19 years) cases of synthetic cannabinoid exposure who have received medical toxicology consultation between January 2012 and December 2016. Clinical and demographic data were collected including age, sex, circumstances surrounding exposure, coingestants, clinical manifestations, treatment, disposition, and outcome. RESULTS: We identified 75 adolescents who presented to the emergency department with synthetic cannabinoid exposure. Most were male (91%) and between the ages of 16 and 19 (66%). The most common symptoms were neuropsychiatric with 50 adolescents (67%) exhibiting central nervous system (CNS) manifestations. There was no predominant toxidrome, and 9 patients (12%) were mechanically ventilated. Mainstay of treatment was supportive care. No deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Synthetic cannabinoid exposure in adolescents is primarily characterized by CNS manifestations, which are varied and may be life-threatening. Frontline caregivers should maintain a high index of suspicion for synthetic cannabinoids, especially in adolescents who present with unexplained CNS manifestations, as there is no specific toxidrome or confirmatory rapid drug screen to detect them.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".