The Effects of Cannabis on Female Reproductive Health Across the Life Course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cannabis is commonly used for its medicinal and therapeutic benefits and is also widely used as a recreational drug. Cannabis use has been increasing in Canada, including among Canadian women of reproductive age. Post-legalization, further increases in cannabis use are expected due to increased availability and lowered perceptions of harm. Although cannabinoids are well known for their effects on the central and peripheral nervous systems, endocannabinoid receptors have also been characterized throughout the female reproductive tract. Cannabinoids may affect many aspects of female reproductive health, including fertility, pregnancy outcomes with neonatal implications, and menopause. Purpose: To provide a comprehensive review of trends in cannabis use among women and review the impact of cannabis across the female reproductive lifespan. Methods: We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library databases using keywords and MeSH terms. Included studies reported the potential impact of cannabinoids on female fertility, pregnancy, transmission to breast milk, neonatal outcomes, and menopause. Results: The existing literature is primarily concentrated on the effect of cannabis use in pregnancy and breastfeeding, with little exploration of its impact on fertility and in later life. Studies are limited in number, with small sample sizes, and are hampered by methodological challenges related to confounding and other potential biases. Conclusions: There remain critical gaps in the literature about the potential risks of cannabis use, particularly in vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, women who are breastfeeding, and their infants. Given the rise in the prevalence of cannabis use, new, robust investigations into the consequences of cannabis exposure on female reproductive health are needed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".