Regulatory Effects of Cannabidiol on Mitochondrial Functions: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Initial work on CBD presumed the compound was inactive, but it was later found to exhibit antipsychotic, anti-depressive, anxiolytic, and antiepileptic effects. In recent decades, evidence has indicated a role for CBD in the modulation of mitochondrial processes, including respiration and bioenergetics, mitochondrial DNA epigenetics, intrinsic apoptosis, the regulation of mitochondrial and intracellular calcium concentrations, mitochondrial fission, fusion and biogenesis, and mitochondrial ferritin concentration and mitochondrial monoamine oxidase activity regulation. Despite these advances, current data demonstrate contradictory findings with regard to not only the magnitude of effects mediated by CBD, but also to the direction of effects. For example, there are data indicating that CBD treatment can increase, decrease, or have no significant effect on intrinsic apoptosis. Differences between studies in cell type, cell-specific response to CBD, and, in some cases, dose of CBD may help to explain differences in outcomes. Most studies on CBD and mitochondria have utilized treatment concentrations that exceed the highest recorded plasma concentrations in humans, suggesting that future studies should focus on CBD treatments within a range observed in pharmacokinetic studies. This review focuses on understanding the mechanisms of CBD-mediated regulation of mitochondrial functions, with an emphasis on findings in neural cells and tissues and therapeutic relevance based on human pharmacokinetics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".