MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804151078 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.13819

Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome: Reports of Fatal Cases

2018· article· en· W2804151078 on OpenAlexaff
Mahra Nourbakhsh, Angela Miller, Jeff Gofton, Graham Jones, Bamidele Adeagbo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical ExaminerUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNauseaVomitingMedicineCannabisBathingCause of deathCannabinoidPediatricsAnesthesiaInternal medicinePsychiatryPathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) is one of the more clinically challenging effects of cannabis consumption. It is characterized by cyclic attacks of nausea and vomiting in chronic cannabinoid users and learned behavior of compulsive hot bathing. The deaths of a 27-year-old female, a 27-year-old male, and a 31-year-old male with a history of CHS are reported. The decedents had a history of cyclical nausea and vomiting, chronic cannabinoid use and negative laboratory, radiological and endoscopic findings. All presented to the emergency department with nausea and vomiting in the days preceding death and were treated symptomatically. Toxicological analysis revealed tetrahydrocannabinol in postmortem blood. The cause of death of two of the three cases was attributed to CHS. CHS was appreciated in the third case but was not the cause of death. These three cases demonstrate the importance of recognizing CHS as a potential cause or contributing factor to death in cannabinoid user.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations83
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207