Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is international support for a standard tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) unit, which could improve the precision with which we understand, regulate and communicate dose-related risks and benefits to consumers. Implementing the standard THC unit in legal recreational cannabis markets would represent an important step forward. We appreciate the commentaries [1-4] which support our proposal for a standard THC unit [5] and raise insightful points for progressing with this initiative. Chester et al. [1] outline the importance of experimental cannabinoid studies for informing the standard tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) unit. Our proposal for a 5-mg THC unit was informed by experimental studies showing that this low dose produces intoxication in infrequent users with minimal risk of adverse acute effects [5]. Moving forward, experimental cannabinoid studies can quantify dose–response effects of THC unit consumption on acute harms and benefits, such as driving performance [6]. Experimental studies should include a wide range of THC unit doses to capture real-world consumption and contrasting directions of effect at low and high doses [2]. Volkow & Weiss [3] and the NIDA Cannabis Policy Research Workgroup [7] highlight the value of a standard THC unit for advancing the understanding of the long-term effects of cannabis use. Large-scale longitudinal cohort studies (e.g. the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study) are now enhancing time-line follow-back methods using pictorial assessment of cannabis type and quantity [8]. Where available, legal cannabis products with known standard THC unit content could increase precision when estimating the long-term effects of cannabis use on brain, cognitive and mental health outcomes throughout the life-span. Filbey [2] and Volkow & Weiss [3] suggest that standard units of dose could also be applied to medicinal use of cannabis and cannabinoids. We agree that this could be helpful for informing patients and clinicians if supported by robust scientific evidence. As the safety and efficacy of cannabinoids for medicinal purposes differ from effects during recreational use, care would be needed when communicating relative risks and benefits among different populations. As a priority, standard THC units should be implemented in legal recreational cannabis markets, such as those in Canada, Uruguay and some US states. As pointed out by Hammond [4], a standard THC unit would represent a considerable improvement to the status quo, despite differences in the time–course and effect profile of certain products [1]. Current dosing information for oral (mg THC) and inhaled (% THC) products are poorly understood by consumers [9] and are difficult to compare with each other. Listing the number of doses per package substantially improves consumer understanding [9] and fulfils the need for clearer dosing information [10]. In conclusion, a standard THC unit is necessary to advance and harmonize scientific research, product regulation and consumer understanding of cannabis use and its consequences. Implementing standard THC units in legal recreational cannabis markets would represent an important step towards this goal. None. T. F. is funded by a Senior Academic Fellowship from the Society for the Study of Addiction. The funder had no role in the writing of the report or the decision to submit for publication. Tom Freeman: Conceptualization-lead; writing-original draft-lead; writing-review & editing-equal. Valentina Lorenzetti: Conceptualization-supporting; writing-review & editing-equal.
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 | 0.044 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.045 | 0.072 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.012 |
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".