Could Cannabidiol Be a Treatment for Coronavirus Disease-19-Related Anxiety Disorders?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
with reported anxiolytic properties, could be a therapeutic option for the treatment of COVID-19-related anxiety disorders. In the global over-the-counter CBD market, anxiety, stress, depression, and sleep disorders are consistently the top reasons people use CBD. In small randomized controlled clinical trials, CBD (300-800 mg) reduces anxiety in healthy volunteers, patients with social anxiety disorder, those at clinical high risk of psychosis, in patients with Parkinson's disease, and in individuals with heroin use disorder. Observational studies and case reports support these findings, extending to patients with anxiety and sleep disorders, Crohn's disease, depression, and in PTSD. Larger ongoing trials in this area continue to add to this evidence base with relevant patient cohorts, sample sizes, and clinical end-points. Pre-clinical studies reveal the molecular targets of CBD in these indications as the cannabinoid receptor type 1 and cannabinoid receptor type 2 (mainly in fear memory processing), serotonin 1A receptor (mainly in anxiolysis) and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (mainly in the underpinning anti-inflammatory/antioxidant effects). Observational and pre-clinical data also support CBD's therapeutic value in improving sleep (increased sleep duration/quality and reduction in nightmares) and depression, which are often comorbid with anxiety. Together these features of CBD make it an attractive novel therapeutic option in COVID-related PTSS that merits investigation and testing through appropriately designed randomized controlled trials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".