MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4220842045 · doi:10.2196/preprints.37448

Canadian resources on cannabis use and fertility, pregnancy, and lactation: A Scoping Review (Preprint)

2022· review· en· W4220842045 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ayni Sharif, Kira Bombay, Malia S. Q. Murphy, Rebecca K. Murray, Lindsey Sikora, Kelly D. Cobey, Daniel J. Corsi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilityCannabisBreastfeedingMedicinePregnancyFamily medicineGovernment (linguistics)Public healthReproductive healthPopulationNursingPsychiatryPediatricsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Cannabis use among reproductive-aged Canadians is increasing, but our understanding of its impacts on fertility, pregnancy, and breastmilk is still evolving. Despite the availability of many online resources, informed-decision making and patient counselling are challenging for expectant families and providers alike. OBJECTIVE To conduct a scoping review of publicly available online Canadian resources providing information on the effects of cannabis on fertility, pregnancy, and breastmilk. METHODS We systematically searched eight databases between 1-Jan-2010 and 30-Nov-2020 and webpages of 71 Canadian obstetrical, government, and public health organizations. English resources discussing the effects of cannabis on fertility, pregnancy, breastfeeding, or the exposed fetus/infant were included. Epidemiological characteristics, readability, and content information were extracted and summarized. RESULTS A total of 183 met our inclusion criteria. Resources included content for public audiences (89.1%) and healthcare providers (n=31, 16.9%). The majority (68.3%) were written at a 10+ reading-grade level, and few (3.8%) were available in languages other than English or French. Common themes included citing a need for more research into the effects of cannabis on reproductive health and recommending that patients avoid or discontinue use. Although resources for providers were consistent in recommending patient counselling, resources targeting the public were less likely to encourage seeking advice from healthcare providers (n=23, 14.1%). CONCLUSIONS Canadian resources consistently identify that there is no known safe amount of cannabis that can be consumed in the context of fertility, pregnancy, and breastfeeding. Areas of improvement include increasing readability, language accessibility, and encouraging bidirectional communication between healthcare providers and patients. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045006

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
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 score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0300.056
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.377
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

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum→French-language works237,207→