Morbidity and mortality associated with prescription cannabinoid drug use in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Respiratory-related morbidity and mortality were evaluated in relation to incident prescription oral synthetic cannabinoid (nabilone, dronabinol) use among older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This was a retrospective, population-based, data-linkage cohort study, analysing health administrative data from Ontario, Canada, from 2006 to 2016. We identified individuals aged 66 years and older with COPD, using a highly specific, validated algorithm, excluding individuals with malignancy and those receiving palliative care (n=185 876 after exclusions). An equivalent number (2106 in each group) of new cannabinoid users (defined as individuals dispensed either nabilone or dronabinol, with no dispensing for either drug in the year previous) and controls (defined as new users of a non-cannabinoid drug) were matched on 36 relevant covariates, using propensity scoring methods. Cox proportional hazard regression was used. RESULTS: Rate of hospitalisation for COPD or pneumonia was not significantly different between new cannabinoid users and controls (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.61-1.24). However, significantly higher rates of all-cause mortality occurred among new cannabinoid users compared with controls (HR 1.64; 95% CI 1.14-2.39). Individuals receiving higher-dose cannabinoids relative to controls were observed to experience both increased rates of hospitalisation for COPD and pneumonia (HR 2.78; 95% CI 1.17-7.09) and all-cause mortality (HR 3.31; 95% CI 1.30-9.51). CONCLUSIONS: New cannabinoid use was associated with elevated rates of adverse outcomes among older adults with COPD. Although further research is needed to confirm these observations, our findings should be considered in decisions to use cannabinoids among older adults with COPD.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".