Correlation of creatinine‐ and specific gravity‐normalized free and glucuronidated urine cannabinoid concentrations following smoked, vaporized, and oral cannabis in frequent and occasional cannabis users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Variability in urine dilution complicates urine cannabinoid test interpretation. Normalizing urine cannabinoid concentrations to specific gravity (SG) or creatinine was proposed to account for donors' hydration states. In this study, all urine voids were individually collected from eight frequent and eight occasional cannabis users for up to 85 hours after each received on separate occasions 50.6 mg Δ9‐tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) by smoking, vaporization, and oral ingestion in a randomized, within‐subject, double‐blind, double‐dummy, placebo‐controlled protocol. Each urine void was analyzed for 11 cannabinoids and phase I and II metabolites by liquid chromatography−tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS), SG, and creatinine. Normalized urine concentrations were log 10 transformed to create normal distributions, and Pearson correlation coefficients determined the degree of association between the two normalization methods. Repeated‐measures linear regression determined if the degree of association differed by frequent or occasional cannabis use, or route of administration after adjusting for gender and time since dosing. Of 1880 urine samples examined, only 11‐nor‐9‐carboxy‐THC (THCCOOH), THCCOOH‐glucuronide, THC‐glucuronide, and 11‐nor‐9‐carboxy‐Δ9‐tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCVCOOH) were greater than the method's limits of quantification (LOQs). Associations between SG‐ and creatinine‐normalized concentrations exceeded 0.90. Repeated‐measures regression analysis found small but statistically significant differences in the degree of association between normalization methods for THCCOOH and THCCOOH‐glucuronide in frequent vs occasional smokers, and in THCVCOOH and THC‐glucuronide by route of administration. For the first time, SG‐ and creatinine‐normalized urine cannabinoid concentrations were evaluated in frequent and occasional cannabis users and following oral, smoked, and inhaled cannabis. Both normalization methods reduced variability, improving the interpretation of urine cannabinoid concentrations and methods were strongly correlated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".