MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4308578613 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/bfrej

The impact of recreational cannabis legalization on cannabis-related acute care events among adults with schizophrenia

2022· preprint· en· W4308578613 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chungah Kim, Andrew Nielsen, Gabriel John Dusing, Sara Allin, Tarra L. Penney, Katherine Rittenbach, Frank P. MacMaster, Patricia O’Campo, Maritt Kirst, Hayley A. Hamilton, Antony Chum

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegalizationCannabisPsychiatrySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)AntipsychoticMedicineRecreationEffects of cannabisCannabidiolPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ObjectiveCannabis use may reduce the effectiveness of antipsychotic medication and treatment adherence in schizophrenia patients. This study examined the impact of cannabis legalization on cannabis-related acute care among schizophrenia patients. MethodsUsing health administrative data in Ontario, 119,848 individuals who were diagnosed with schizophrenia prior to legalization were identified. An interrupted time-series model was used to study the effect of cannabis-related policy on hospitalizations in individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia.ResultsWe found that legalization of cannabis flower and herb sales was associated with an immediate increase in hospitalization by 233.6% (95%CI 1.59-3.414) for men and 216.1% (95%CI 1.59-3.390) for women with schizophrenia. ConclusionsOther jurisdictions seeking to legalize recreational cannabis should consider preventive strategies to reduce unintended consequences among vulnerable patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 topicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research→French-language works237,207→