Cannabis Use in Persons With Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Vulnerability to Substance Misuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether cannabis users self-medicating their inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) symptoms are more likely to have comorbid mental health or personality risk factors associated with an increased potential for substance misuse compared with recreational cannabis users. METHODS: We surveyed individuals with IBD about their cannabis use, their mental health symptoms, and personality risk factors associated with substance misuse. We compared risk factors for substance misuse between individuals using cannabis to manage IBD symptoms and those using cannabis recreationally. RESULTS: Of 201 persons with IBD who completed the questionnaire, 108 reported lifetime cannabis use. Of those, a larger proportion of Crohn's disease patients used cannabis to manage IBD symptoms (53% [34/64] vs 28% [12/43]; P = 0.010). Individuals self-medicating with cannabis were more likely to use cannabis for coping reasons (P = 0.016) and demonstrated higher levels of impulsivity (P = 0.004) and depressive symptoms (P = 0.012) when compared with individuals using cannabis recreationally. Logistic regression revealed that cannabis was 4.1 times (P = 0.05) and 3.7 times (P = 0.05) more likely to be used for IBD symptoms by smokers and individuals with moderate-severe depressive symptoms, respectively. Individuals high in impulsivity were 4.1 times more likely to use cannabis for their IBD symptoms than those low in impulsivity (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Persons with IBD self-medicating with cannabis have characteristics associated with increased vulnerability to substance misuse when compared with those using cannabis recreationally. Screening for mental health comorbidities and vulnerability to substance misuse should be undertaken if cannabis is to be used to treat IBD symptoms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".