Medical Cannabis in Pediatric Oncology: Friend or Foe?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The antineoplastic effects of cannabis have been known since 1975. Since the identification of the components of the endogenous cannabinoid system (ECS) in the 1990s, research into the potential of cannabinoids as medicine has exploded, including in anti-cancer research. However, nearly all of this research has been on adults. Physicians and governing bodies remain cautious in recommending the use of cannabis in children, since the ECS develops early in life and data about cannabis exposure in utero show negative outcomes. However, there exist many published cases of use of cannabis in children to treat pediatric epilepsy and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) that show both the safety and efficacy of cannabis in pediatric populations. Additionally, promising preclinical evidence showing that cannabis has anti-cancer effects on pediatric cancer warrants further investigation of cannabis' use in pediatric cancer patients, as well as other populations of pediatric patients. This review aims to examine the evidence regarding the potential clinical utility of cannabis as an anti-cancer treatment in children by summarizing what is currently known about uses of medical cannabis in children, particularly regarding its anti-cancer 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 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".