The Use of Cannabinoids for Insomnia in Daily Life: Naturalistic Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Insomnia is a prevalent condition that presents itself at both the symptom and diagnostic levels. Although insomnia is one of the main reasons individuals seek medicinal cannabis, little is known about the profile of cannabinoid use or the perceived benefit of the use of cannabinoids in daily life. OBJECTIVE We conducted a retrospective study of medicinal cannabis users to investigate the use profile and perceived efficacy of cannabinoids for the management of insomnia. METHODS Data were collected using the Strainprint app, which allows medicinal cannabis users to log conditions and symptoms, track cannabis use, and monitor symptom severity pre- and postcannabis use. Our analyses examined 991 medicinal cannabis users with insomnia across 24,189 tracked cannabis use sessions. Sessions were analyzed, and both descriptive statistics and linear mixed-effects modeling were completed to examine use patterns and perceived efficacy. RESULTS Overall, cannabinoids were perceived to be efficacious across all genders and ages, and no significant differences were found among product forms, ingestion methods, or gender groups. Although all strain categories were perceived as efficacious, predominant indica strains were found to reduce insomnia symptomology more than cannabidiol (CBD) strains (estimated mean difference 0.59, SE 0.11; 95% CI 0.36-0.81; adjusted P<.001) and predominant sativa strains (estimated mean difference 0.74, SE 0.16; 95% CI 0.43-1.06; adjusted P<.001). Indica hybrid strains also presented a greater reduction in insomnia symptomology than CBD strains (mean difference 0.52, SE 0.12; 95% CI 0.29-0.74; adjusted P<.001) and predominant sativa strains (mean difference 0.67, SE 0.16; 95% CI 0.34-1.00; adjusted P=.002). CONCLUSIONS Medicinal cannabis users perceive a significant improvement in insomnia with cannabinoid use, and this study suggests a possible advantage with the use of predominant indica strains compared with predominant sativa strains and exclusively CBD in this population. This study emphasizes the need for randomized placebo-controlled trials assessing the efficacy and safety profile of cannabinoids for the treatment of insomnia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".