Evaluating the Suitability and Potential Efficiency of <i>Cannabis sativa</i> Oil for Patients with Primary Burning Mouth Syndrome: A Prospective, Open-Label, Single-Arm Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of a Cannabis sativa oil in the management of patients diagnosed with primary burning mouth syndrome (BMS). DESIGN: Prospective, open-label, single-arm pilot study. SETTING: University hospital. SUBJECTS: Seventeen patients with diagnosed BMS were included. METHODS: Subjects were treated for 4 weeks with a full cannabis plant extract, which was prepared from standardized plant material (cannabis flos) in specialized pharmacies by means of Romano-Hazekamp extraction and was diluted in oil (1 g of cannabis in 10 g of olive oil). The primary outcome was the change in pain intensity (assessed by the visual analog scale, Present Pain Intensity scale, McGill Pain Questionnaire, and Oral Health Impact Profiles) at the end of the protocol and during the succeeding 24 weeks; the neuropathic pain was also investigated with a specific interview questionnaire (DN4-interview [Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions]). Levels of anxiety and depression were considered as secondary outcomes, together with reported adverse events due to the specified treatment. RESULTS: Subjects showed a statistically significant improvement over time in terms of a clinical remission of the oral symptoms. Levels of anxiety and depression also changed statistically, displaying a favorable improvement. No serious reactions were detailed. None of the patients had to stop the treatment due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot evaluation, the C. sativa oil provided was effective and well tolerated in patients with primary BMS. Further bigger and properly defined randomized controlled trials, with different therapeutic approaches or placebo control, are needed, however.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".