Cannabis for the Treatment of Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis: Evidence From Cochrane Reviews.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We systematically reviewed the safety and effectiveness of cannabis and cannabinoids treatment for Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, WHO ICTRP, AMED, PsychINFO, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, and the European Clinical Trials Register were searched for relevant studies. MAIN RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials (3 CD and 2 UC studies, 185 participants) were included. One CD study (N = 21) showed 45% (5 of 11) of the cannabis cigarette group experienced clinical remission compared with 10% (1 of 10) of the placebo group (risk ratio [RR] 4.55; 95% CI, 0.63-32.56). Another CD study (N = 19) did not show significant rates of clinical remission. Forty percent (4 of 10) of participants in the cannabis oil group experienced remission compared with 33% (3 of 9) of the placebo group (RR 1.20; 95% CI, 0.36-3.97). A UC study (N = 60) did not have significant clinical remission rates. Twenty-four percent (7 of 29) of cannabis oil participants experienced remission compared with 26% (8 of 31) of placebo participants (RR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.39-2.25). A second UC study (N = 32) showed the effects on disease activity, C-reactive protein levels, and fecal calprotectin levels were uncertain. Adverse events were more prevalent in the cannabis groups for both CD and UC studies. GRADE analysis for the UC and CD studies ranged from very low to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, no firm conclusions can be made regarding the safety and effectiveness of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with CD and UC.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".