Genetic determinants of cannabis use: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the legalization of cannabis in Canada, there is an increase trend in use. Cannabis has been known to have several health implications, one of which is the development of cannabis use disorder (CUD). CUD is more common in males than females, as well as in certain ethnic groups such as Native Americans. Additionally, both environmental and genetic risk factors have been found for cannabis use. The objective of this systematic review will be to summarize the genetic variants associated with cannabis use which have reached borderline genome-wide significance. METHODS: This systematic review will incorporate articles that have performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) investigating cannabis use. MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, GWAS Catalog, GWAS Central, and NIH Database of Genotype and Phenotype will be searched using a comprehensive search strategy. The quality of genetic association studies (Q-Genie) tool will be utilized to assess the quality of the included studies. All screening and data extraction will occur independently by two authors. If feasible, a random-effects meta-analysis will be conducted on pooled odds ratios of single nucleotide polymorphisms reaching borderline genome-wide significance. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will synthesize available GWAS on cannabis use. Results from this review will inform and direct further investigation of genetic variants associated with cannabis use. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020176016.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.036 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.007 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".