A Coala‐T‐Cannabis Survey Study of breast cancer patients' use of cannabis before, during, and after treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to characterize cannabis use among patients with breast cancer, including their reasons for and timing of use, their sources of cannabis information and products, their satisfaction with the information found, their perceptions of its safety, and their dialogue about cannabis with their physicians. METHODS: United States-based members of the Breastcancer.org and Healthline.com communities with a self-reported diagnosis of breast cancer within 5 years (age ≥ 18 years) were invited to participate in an anonymous online survey. After informed consent was obtained, nonidentifiable data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Of all participants (n = 612), 42% (n = 257) reported using cannabis for relief of symptoms, which included pain (78%), insomnia (70%), anxiety (57%), stress (51%), and nausea/vomiting (46%). Furthermore, 49% of cannabis users believed that medical cannabis could be used to treat cancer itself. Of those taking cannabis, 79% had used it during treatment, which included systemic therapies, radiation, and surgery. At the same time, few (39%) had discussed it with any of their physicians. CONCLUSIONS: A significant percentage of survey participants (42%) used cannabis to address symptoms; approximately half of these participants believed that cannabis could treat cancer itself. Most participants used cannabis during active cancer treatment despite the potential for an adverse event during this vulnerable time. Furthermore, most participants believed that cannabis was safe and were unaware that product quality varied widely and depended on the source. This study reviews the research on medicinal cannabis in the setting of these findings to help physicians to recognize its risks and benefits for patients with cancer. LAY SUMMARY: Almost half of patients with breast cancer use cannabis, most commonly during active treatment to manage common symptoms and side effects: pain, anxiety, insomnia, and nausea. However, most patients do not discuss cannabis use with their physicians. Instead, the internet and family/friends are the most common sources of cannabis information. Furthermore, most participants believe that cannabis products are safe and are unaware that the safety of many products is untested.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".