Marijuana Use and Health Outcomes in Persons Living With HIV: Protocol for the Marijuana Associated Planning and Long-term Effects (MAPLE) Longitudinal Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Marijuana use is common in persons with HIV, but there is limited evidence of its relationship with potential health benefits or harms. OBJECTIVE: The Marijuana Associated Planning and Long-term Effects (MAPLE) study was designed to evaluate the impact of marijuana use on HIV-related health outcomes, cognitive function, and systemic inflammation. METHODS: The MAPLE study is a longitudinal cohort study of participants living with HIV who were recruited from 3 locations in Florida and were either current marijuana users or never regular marijuana users. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included detailed marijuana use assessments, underwent interviewer-administered neurocognitive assessments, and provided blood and urine samples. Ongoing follow-ups included brief telephone assessments (every 3 months), detailed questionnaires (annually), repeated blood and urine samples (2 years), and linkage to medical records and statewide HIV surveillance data. Supplemental measures related to intracellular RNA, COVID-19, Alzheimer disease, and the gut microbiome were added after study initiation. RESULTS: The MAPLE study completed enrollment of 333 persons between 2018 and 2021. The majority of participants in the sample were ≥50 years of age (200/333, 60.1%), male (181/333, 54.4%), cisgender men (173/329, 52.6%), non-Hispanic Black (221/333, 66.4%), and self-reported marijuana users (260/333, 78.1%). Participant follow-up was completed in 2022, with annual updates to HIV surveillance data through at least 2027. CONCLUSIONS: The MAPLE study is the largest cohort specifically designed to understand the use of marijuana and its effects on HIV-related outcomes. The study population has significant diversity across age, sex, gender, and race. The data will help clinicians and public health officials to better understand patterns of marijuana use associated with both positive and negative health outcomes, and may inform recommendations for future clinical trials related to medical marijuana and HIV. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/37153.
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 | 0.026 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.008 |
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".