Cannabis-based product use in a multiple sclerosis cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The objective of this study was to characterize the use of cannabis-based products (CBPs) by multiple sclerosis (MS) patients who attend the University of British Columbia Hospital (UBCH) MS clinic. Methods All patients attending the UBCH MS clinic from January to March 2018 were invited to participate in an anonymous survey that included: patient demographics (sex, age and employment status), self-reported MS-specific data (subtype, disease duration, previous and current disease modifying therapies, symptomatic medications) and CBP use (formulation, frequency, perceived benefits/side-effects). A second cohort of retrospective patient data (CBP use, sex, age, disease subtype and Expanded Disability Status Scale) was extracted from the UBCH MS clinic electronic medical record (EMR). Results Of 600 surveys distributed, 188 were returned with completed CBP usage. CBP use was daily for 19% ( n = 37), weekly for 6% ( n = 11), monthly for 4% ( n = 7), rarely for 21% ( n = 39) and 50% ( n = 94) never used. Of the CBP users (daily, weekly and monthly), CBP use included: oral ( n = 43/55), smoked/vaporized ( n = 42/55), topical ( n = 14/55) and mucosal ( n = 5/55). EMR data was available for 561 MS patients where cannabis use/non-use was documented. CBP users represented 19% (107/561). Conclusions CBP use is common based on volunteer reporting, with approximately one out of four patients who attend the UBCH MS clinic using CBPs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".