MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4360608812 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0271079

Lessons from 20 years of medical cannabis use in Canada

2023· article· en· W4360608812 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Minsup Shim, Hai V. Nguyen, Paul Grootendorst

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsCannabisMedical cannabisMedicineGovernment (linguistics)Environmental healthFamily medicineBusinessPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Canada was one of the first countries to regulate the medical use of cannabis. However, literature on Canada's medical cannabis program is limited. METHODS: We use administrative data from the medical cannabis program, and licensed cannabis vendor catalog data to describe a) the participation of patients, physicians, and cannabis vendors in the program from its inception in 1999 to 2021, and b) trends in medical cannabis consumption, prices and potency. We also use national surveys conducted over the last several decades to estimate trends in regular cannabis use (medical or otherwise) and how it changed during the medical cannabis access regimes. RESULTS: In 2001, the Canadian government granted access to those with physician-documented evidence of a severe health problem that could not be managed using conventional therapies. Most patients accessed cannabis grown under a personal production license. By 2013, authorized daily cannabis dosages were very high. In 2014, the government, concerned over illegal diversion, required that cannabis be purchased from a licensed commercial grower; personal production was banned. Physicians were given responsibility for authorizing patient access. To fill the regulatory void, the physician regulatory bodies in Canada imposed their own prescribing restrictions. After these changes, the number of physicians who were willing to support patient cannabis use markedly decline but the number of patients participating in the program sharply increased. Medical cannabis use varied by province-rates were generally lower in provinces with stricter regulations on physician cannabis prescribing. Most varieties of cannabis oil available for sale are now high in CBD and low in THC. Dry cannabis varieties, conversely, tend to be high in THC and low in CBD. Inflation adjusted prices of most varieties of medical cannabis have declined over time. We find that rates of daily cannabis use (medical or otherwise) increased markedly after the 2014 policy regime. The fraction of Canadians using cannabis daily increased again after the 2018 legalization of recreational cannabis; at the same time, participation in the medical access program declined. CONCLUSION: The implications for patient health outcomes of changes in the medical cannabis program and legalization of recreational use remains an important area for future research.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0110.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations32
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research→French-language works237,207→