A Survey of Topical Cannabis Use in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since its legalization in Canada, cannabis use has expanded to include commercially available topical formations. Several scientifically unsupported claims regarding the therapeutic efficacy of topical cannabis are also being made. Developing an understanding of the consumer uses of topical cannabis is important for clinicians to provide appropriate counseling and inform potential areas of therapeutic development. We are examining the prevalence, purpose of use, and sources of information regarding topical cannabis in the Canadian population, with a focus on dermatologic uses. METHOD: A cross-sectional, anonymous electronic, voluntary survey was developed to assess the use of topical cannabis amongst adults in Canada. RESULTS: Cannabis was used topically at least once by 24.3% of respondents who started the survey. The commonest form of topical cannabis were creams (26.2%). The most common dermatologic conditions being treated with topical cannabis included atopic dermatitis (25%), acne (19%), and anti-aging (16%); for non-dermatologic conditions, common uses were for joint stiffness or tendonitis (30%) and headaches and migraines (27%). Topical cannabis was reported to be most effective for joint stiffness and tendonitis, general muscular soreness, headaches, eczema, pruritus, acne, and psoriasis. Most respondents obtained and received information about topical cannabis from dispensaries. CONCLUSION: Canadians use topical cannabis for a broad range of systemic and dermatologic purposes, most of which have limited evidence. Future clinical studies are required to elucidate the therapeutic efficacy and safety of topical cannabis. Dermatologists should screen their patients for topical cannabis use and be aware of the limited evidence of therapeutic potential.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".