MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cannabinoids and Cancer Chemotherapy-Associated Adverse Effects

2021· article· en· W3216873162 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Monographs · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Center for Complementary and Integrative HealthNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineNauseaAdverse effectChemotherapyCancerVomitingCannabisCancer painOpioidDronabinolChemotherapy-induced nausea and vomitingAntiemeticIntensive care medicineOncologyInternal medicineCannabinoidPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of cannabis is not unfamiliar to many cancer patients, as there is a long history of its use for cancer pain and/or pain, nausea, and cachexia induced by cancer treatment. To date, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved 2 cannabis-based pharmacotherapies for the treatment of cancer chemotherapy-associated adverse effects: dronabinol and nabilone. Over the proceeding decades, both research investigating and societal attitudes toward the potential utility of cannabinoids for a range of indications have progressed dramatically. The following monograph highlights recent preclinical research focusing on promising cannabinoid-based approaches for the treatment of the 2 most common adverse effects of cancer chemotherapy: chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Both plant-derived and synthetic approaches are discussed, as is the potential relative safety and effectiveness of these approaches in relation to current treatment options, including opioid analgesics.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.279 · 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