The Safety and Efficacy of Marijuana in Persons Living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of the use of marijuana throughout the world is substantial. In light of ongoing increases in accessibility to marijuana, safety and efficacy must be established to guide recommendations for safe use. Of particular interest is at-risk populations such as persons living with HIV (PLWH) in whom there are higher rates of marijuana use and inherent risks of comorbid conditions. Databases and reference lists were searched for relevant studies investigating marijuana or cannabinoid use, HIV, and/or pulmonary diseases. The effect of marijuana on the human body is complex and not yet fully understood. The principal components, tetrahydrocannabinol, and cannabidiol interact with cannabinoid receptors. As some cannabinoid receptors are located in the immune system, many have investigated the effect of marijuana on the immune system. Although marijuana would appear to have anti-inflammatory properties, there are conflicting findings on its immune effect in PLWH. In the lung, marijuana smoke is thought to cause harm. Marijuana smokers have shown increased rates of respiratory symptoms, and a variety of changes on lung function has been reported. Limited data are available specific to the safety of marijuana on the lung, cognition, malignancy risk, and cardiovascular disease in PLWH who are already at increased risk of chronic diseases. Marijuana use is common in PLWH, but significant research gaps exist with regard to its safety and efficacy. Until further evidence on its safety is available, recommendations should be to avoid the use in PLWH.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".