Chest CT Findings in Marijuana Smokers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Global consumption of marijuana is increasing, but there is a paucity of evidence concerning associated lung imaging findings. Purpose To use chest CT to investigate the effects of marijuana smoking in the lung. Materials and Methods This retrospective case-control study evaluated results of chest CT examinations (from October 2005 to July 2020) in marijuana smokers, nonsmoker control patients, and tobacco-only smokers. We compared rates of emphysema, airway changes, gynecomastia, and coronary artery calcification. Age- and sex-matched subgroups were created for comparison with tobacco-only smokers older than 50 years. Results were analyzed using χ2 tests. Results A total of 56 marijuana smokers (34 male; mean age, 49 years ± 14 [SD]), 57 nonsmoker control patients (32 male; mean age, 49 years ± 14), and 33 tobacco-only smokers (18 male; mean age, 60 years ± 6) were evaluated. Higher rates of emphysema were seen among marijuana smokers (42 of 56 [75%]) than nonsmokers (three of 57 [5%]) (P < .001) but not tobacco-only smokers (22 of 33 [67%]) (P = .40). Rates of bronchial thickening, bronchiectasis, and mucoid impaction were higher among marijuana smokers compared with the other groups (P < .001 to P = .04). Gynecomastia was more common in marijuana smokers (13 of 34 [38%]) than in control patients (five of 32 [16%]) (P = .039) and tobacco-only smokers (two of 18 [11%]) (P = .040). In age-matched subgroup analysis of 30 marijuana smokers (23 male), 29 nonsmoker control patients (17 male), and 33 tobacco-only smokers (18 male), rates of bronchial thickening, bronchiectasis, and mucoid impaction were again higher in the marijuana smokers than in the tobacco-only smokers (P < .001 to P = .006). Emphysema rates were higher in age-matched marijuana smokers (28 of 30 [93%]) than in tobacco-only smokers (22 of 33 [67%]) (P = .009). There was no difference in rate of coronary artery calcification between age-matched marijuana smokers (21 of 30 [70%]) and tobacco-only smokers (28 of 33 [85%]) (P = .16). Conclusion Airway inflammation and emphysema were more common in marijuana smokers than in nonsmokers and tobacco-only smokers, although variable interobserver agreement and concomitant cigarette smoking among the marijuana-smoking cohort limits our ability to draw strong conclusions. © RSNA, 2022 See also the editorial by Galvin and Franks in this issue.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".