Effect of inhaled vaporized cannabis on dynamic airway function, breathlessness and exercise intolerance in adults with advanced COPD: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Previous studies have demonstrated an acute bronchodilator effect of smoked cannabis in healthy and asthmatic adults. Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of single dose administration of vaporized cannabis in producing bronchodilation and reducing breathlessness and improving exercise endurance in advanced COPD. Methods: 16 patients with GOLD stage III-IV COPD (FEV1=36±11%pred) underwent symptom-limited constant load cycle exercise testing after inhaling 35 mg of vaporized cannabis (18.2% THC, CBD <0.1%) or placebo (PLA, 0.33% THC, CBD 0.99%), randomized to order. Exercise endurance time (EET), and breathlessness intensity ratings (Borg 0-10 scale), breathing pattern, inspiratory capacity (IC) and inspiratory reserve volume (IRV) during exercise at isotime were compared between cannabis and PLA. Results: Compared with PLA, inhaled vaporized cannabis had no effect on EET nor an effect on breathlessness intensity ratings, breathing pattern, IC and IRV during exercise at isotime. Conclusion: Single-dose inhalation of vaporized cannabis vs. PLA had no demonstrable effect on dynamic airway, breathlessness and exercise tolerance in adults with advanced COPD.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".