Medicinal and Recreational Marijuana: Review of the Literature and Recommendations for the Plastic Surgeon
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the shift in public opinion and legalization of cannabis for therapeutic and recreational use, cannabis consumption has become more common. This trend will likely continue as decriminalization and legalization of marijuana and associated cannabinoids expand. Despite this increase in use, our familiarity with this drug and its associated effects remains incomplete. The aim of this review is to describe the physiologic effects of marijuana and its related compounds, review current literature related to therapeutic applications and consequences, discuss potential side effects of marijuana in surgical patients, and provide recommendations for the practicing plastic surgeon. Special attention is given to areas that directly impact plastic surgery patients, including postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting and wound healing. Although the literature demonstrates substantial support for marijuana in areas such as chronic pain and nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy, the data supporting its use for common perioperative problems are lacking. Its use for treating perioperative problems, such as pain and nausea, is poorly supported and requires further research.
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.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it