MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Co-exposure of cocaine and cannabinoids and its association with select biological, behavioural and health outcomes: A systematic scoping review of multi-disciplinary studies

2021· article· en· W3183868465 on OpenAlexafffund
Dimitri Daldegan‐Bueno, Lucas Oliveira Maia, Michelle Glass, Didier Jutras‐Aswad, Benedikt Fischer

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Neuropsychopharmacology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de MontréalSimon Fraser University
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Auckland
KeywordsCannabisCannabidiolAddictionPsycINFOCINAHLMedicineCocaine dependencePsychiatryMEDLINESystematic reviewDelta-9-tetrahydrocannabinolCannabinoidPsychologyPharmacologyPsychological interventionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cocaine use entails severe health- and social-related harms globally. Treatment options for cocaine dependence are highly limited. Benefits of cannabinoids for addiction have been documented, making it opportune to examine existing data on the possible outcomes associated with cannabinoids and cocaine co-use. We conducted a systematic scoping review following the PRISMA guidelines of peer-reviewed, English-language studies published from 2000 to 2021 in four databases (Medline, Web-of-Science, CINAHL Plus, and PsycInfo), assessing the co-exposure of cannabis/cannabinoids with cocaine on behavioural, biological or health outcomes. Both quantitative and qualitative, as well as humans and pre-clinical animals' studies (n=46) were included. Pre-clinical studies (n=19) showed mostly protective effects of cannabidiol (CBD) administration on animal models of addiction (e.g., cocaine-craving, -relapse, and -withdrawal) and cocaine-toxicity. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) had more inconsistent results, with both protective and counter-protective effects. Human studies (n=27) were more heterogeneous and assessed natural ongoing cannabis and cocaine use or dependence. Quantitative-based studies showed mostly enhanced harms in several outcomes (e.g., cocaine use, mental health); two available clinical trials found no effect upon CBD administration on cocaine-related treatment outcomes. Qualitative data-based studies reported cannabis use as a substitute for or to alleviate harms of crack-cocaine use. While pre-clinical studies suggest a potential of cannabinoids, especially CBD, to treat cocaine addiction, the few trials conducted in humans found no benefits. Cannabis co-use by cocaine users commonly presents a risk factor, entailing enhanced harms for users. More rigorous, controlled trials are still necessary to investigate cannabinoids' potential considering pre-clinical findings and reported benefits from specific drug users.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.009
Bibliometrics0.0260.026
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean NeuropsychopharmacologySame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207