Cannabis use amongst tinnitus patients: Consumption patterns and attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tinnitus has a significant impact on quality of life and causes considerable psychological distress. Cannabis is known to modulate neuron hyperexcitability, provide protection against auditory damage, and has been used for treatment for many diseases which have physiological similarities with tinnitus. The objective of this study was to survey patients presenting with tinnitus regarding their perspectives and usage patterns of cannabis. METHODS: Patients with a primary presenting complaint of tinnitus in a tertiary neuro-otology clinic completed a 18-item questionnaire assessing perception, attitudes, and cannabis usage patterns. RESULTS: Forty five patients completed the survey (mean age: 54.5 years, 31 females and 14 males). Overall, 96% of patients reported that they would consider cannabis as treatment for their tinnitus. Patients considered cannabis use for auditory symptoms (91%), and symptoms related to their tinnitus, such as emotional complaints (60%), sleep disturbances (64%), and functional disturbances (56%). 36% of patients had previously used cannabis and 22% of patients reported cannabis use at the time of the study. 80% of patients that were actively using cannabis reported that it helped with tinnitus-related symptoms, such as dizziness, anxiety, bodily pain, and sleep disturbances. Most patients would prefer to use edibles (62%), tablet (58%) and cream (47%) formulations of cannabis. Patients were concerned about the cost (29%), potential physical health implications (53%) and psychosocial side effects (60%) of cannabis. Over half of patients learned about cannabis from a friend or family member and only 22% of patients learned about cannabis from a physician or nurse. CONCLUSION: Cannabis use is common amongst patients with tinnitus and current users of cannabis reported that it helped with their symptoms. Most patients would consider its use as a potential treatment to alleviate their tinnitus-related symptoms and are interested in learning more regarding its use. By understanding how cannabis is perceived by tinnitus patients, healthcare providers can provide appropriate patient education.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".