MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3177526206 · doi:10.1101/2021.07.02.450963

Pharmacokinetics and Central Accumulation of Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and its Bioactive Metabolites Are Influenced by Route of Administration and Sex

2021· preprint· en· W3177526206 on OpenAlexafffund
Samantha L. Baglot, Catherine Hume, Gavin N. Petrie, Robert J. Aukema, Savannah H. M. Lightfoot, Laine M. Grace, Ruokun Zhou, Linda A. Parker, Jong M. Rho, Stephanie L. Borgland, Ryan J. McLaughlin, Laurent Brechenmacher, Matthew N. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMathison Centre for Mental Health Research and EducationBranch Out Neurological Foundation
KeywordsInhalationPharmacokineticsMetabolitePharmacologyCannabisInhalation exposureToxicokineticsHypothermiaRoute of administrationTetrahydrocannabinolDelta-9-tetrahydrocannabinolChemistryCannabinoidAnesthesiaMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Up to a third of North Americans over 16 years old report using cannabis in the prior month, most commonly through inhalation. Animal models that reflect human cannabis consumption are critical to study its impacts on brain and behaviour. Nevertheless, most animal studies to date examine effects of cannabis through injection of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC; primary psychoactive component of cannabis). THC injections produce markedly different physiological and behavioural effects than inhalation, likely due to distinctive pharmacokinetics of each administration route. The current study directly examined if administration route (injection versus inhalation), with dosing being matched on peak THC blood levels, alters the metabolism of THC, and the central accumulation of THC and its metabolites over time. Adult male and female Sprague-Dawley rats received either a single intraperitoneal injection of THC (2.5 mg/kg) or a single (15 min) session of inhaled exposure to THC distillate (100 mg/mL) vapour. Blood and brains were collected at 15, 30, 60, 90 and 240 minutes post-exposure for analysis of THC and metabolites through mass spectrometry-liquid chromatography. Inhalation results in immediate hypothermia, whereas injection results in delayed hypothermia. Despite achieving comparable peak concentrations of blood THC in both groups, our results indicate higher initial brain THC concentration following inhalation, whereas injection resulted in dramatically higher 11-OH-THC concentrations, a potent THC metabolite, in blood and brain that increased over time. Our results provide evidence that THC and its metabolites exhibit different pharmacokinetic profiles following inhalation versus injection, which could have significant impacts for data interpretation and generalizability. Accordingly, we suggest that translational work in the realm of THC and cannabis strongly consider using inhalation models over those that employ injection. Highlights Body temperature as well as blood and brain levels of THC and metabolites differ based on administration route THC inhalation results in immediate hypothermia, whereas THC injection results in delayed hypothermia THC inhalation results in higher initial brain THC levels than injection THC injection results in higher blood & brain 11-OH-THC levels than inhalation Translational cannabis work should strongly consider using inhalation over injection

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research→French-language works237,207→