A comparison of the attitudes about the legalization of marijuana use for medical purposes by cancer patients in two cancer centers located in a legalized and a non-legalized state.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
191 Background: There is limited evidence on the perception of medical marijuana (MM) among cancer patients in a legalized vs. a non-legalized state. In this study, we compared the attitudes of cancer patients in a legalized (Arizona) vs. a non-legalized state (Texas) on legalizing marijuana for medical use and their perception of its medical usefulness. We also examined their preference of MM for pain, anxiety and depression against current treatments and examined any demographic, physical or psychosocial association with its perception. Methods: Two hundred adult cancer patients were enrolled from the outpatient palliative care centers at Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center in Gilbert, AZ and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX. All patients were residents of the state where they were enrolled. Various physical and psychosocial instruments were collected including a survey designed to determine attitudes and beliefs of patient towards MM. Due to the sensitivity of information, no identifiers were associated with data recorded. Results: No significant difference was found between both locations in attitude towards legalizing MM [Arizona 92% (85 - 97%) vs. Texas 90% (82 - 95%); p = 0.81] and belief of its usefulness [Arizona 97% (92 - 99%) vs. Texas 93% (86 - 97%); p = 0.33]. Patients preferred MM over current treatments for anxiety [60% (51 – 68%); p = 0.003] but not for pain and depression. Patients who favored legalizing MM were younger (median age 59 vs. 67 y; p = 0.027) and had worse Edmonton Symptom Assessment System fatigue (median 5 vs 3; p = 0.015) and appetite (median 3 vs 0.5; p = 0.004) scores. There was a significant difference among those who have used MM (95%) and have not used MM (88%) in support of legalization of MM (p = 0.024). Conclusions: Cancer patients from both legalized and non-legalized states showed strong support for legalization of marijuana for medical purposes and strong belief in its medical use. Patient who are younger, and had worse fatigue and appetite showed higher support for medical marijuana.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".