A pilot randomised placebo‐controlled trial of cannabidiol to reduce severe behavioural problems in children and adolescents with intellectual disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Severe behavioural problems (SBP) are a major contributor to morbidity in children with intellectual disability (ID). Medications used to treat SBP in ID are associated with a high risk of side effects. Cannabidiol has potential therapeutic effects in SBP. This pilot study aimed to investigate the feasibility of conducting a randomised placebo-controlled trial of cannabidiol to reduce SBP in children with ID. METHODS: This is a double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-armed, parallel-design, randomised controlled trial of cannabidiol in children aged 8-16 years with ID and SBP. Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive either 98% cannabidiol in oil (Tilray, Canada) or placebo orally for 8 weeks. The dose was up-titrated over 9 days to 20 mg/kg/day in two divided doses, with a maximum dose of 500 mg twice/day. The feasibility and acceptability of all study components were assessed. RESULTS: Eight children were randomised, and all completed the full study protocol. There were no serious adverse events or drop-outs. Protocol adherence for key study components was excellent: study visits 100%, medication adherence 100%, blood tests 92% and questionnaire completion 88%. Parents reported a high degree of acceptability with the study design. All parents reported they would recommend the study to other families with children with similar problems. There was an efficacy signal in favour of active drug. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the study protocol is feasible and acceptable to patients with ID and SBP and their families.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".