MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3210525591 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxab061.062

79 What we know about acute pediatric cannabis poisoning: A scoping review

2021· review· en· W3210525591 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Elliott, L. Gaudet, Kaitlin Hogue, Shannon D. Scott, Lisa Hartling

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCannabisMedicineCINAHLFamily medicinePublic healthMEDLINEPsychiatryPediatricsPsychological interventionNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Primary Subject area Emergency Medicine - Paediatric Background Liberalization of cannabis policy in Canada has led to concerns that increasing access to cannabis and cannabis infused products (e.g. edibles) for adults will have negative, unintended consequences for children. Objectives We conducted a scoping review to map the available evidence on the public health implications, clinical management, and experiences and information needs of healthcare providers (HCP) and parents, relating to acute cannabis poising in children. Design/Methods We searched three databases (Medline, CINAHL, and PsychINFO) from inception until October 2019. Grey literature was searched up to March 2020. We included all records (primary research, knowledge synthesis, editorials, letters/opinion pieces, government websites and news articles) reported in English or French. We defined acute cannabis poisoning as unintended exposure to cannabis or cannabis product(s) that led to the need for acute medical advice or treatment. A primary reviewer screened all identified publications and a secondary reviewer screened excludes. Records were categorized by area (public health implications, clinical management, experiences and information needs) and mapped based on reported outcomes and record type. Results We identified 4644 records and included 158 (knowledge syntheses [n=3]; primary research [n=95]; editorials, commentaries, and letters [n=18]; education or media for HCP [n=15]; and education or media for the public [n=27]). Public health implications were addressed by 129 (82%), often reporting increasing incidence of acute paediatric cannabis poisonings. 116 records (51 [44%] case studies) reported or discussed clinical characteristics and/or management of acute paediatric cannabis poisoning, including signs and symptoms (92%), use of toxicology screening (60%), type of clinical management (52%) and treatment recommendations (36%). Few sources addressed either HCP (n=5) or parent (n=1) experiences or information needs. Conclusion The increasing incidence of acute cannabis poisonings and liberalization of cannabis legislation is clear, however, evidence around the clinical management is limited. Rigorous studies of suggested clinical treatments are needed to develop an evidence-base from which data can be synthesized and appraised, in order to drive the development of clinical recommendations. Additionally, further research exploring HCP and parent experiences and information needs around cannabis poisoning is warranted.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0290.024
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research→French-language works237,207→