A Phase Ib, Double Blind, Randomized Study of Cannabis Oil for Pain in Parkinson's Disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pain is common in Parkinson's disease (PD), but effective therapies are limited. Objectives: To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and safety of formulations of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) for pain in PD. Methods: In this phase 1b, double-blind, randomized, single-center study, participants were randomized to three formulations of THC/CBD (18:0, 10:10, and 1:20). The MTD, adverse events (AE), and tolerability are described for each formulation. Results: Eight participants were randomized. The MTD was similar among groups (0.8-0.9 mL/daily), and there were no serious AE or study drop-outs. The most common AE were drowsiness and dizziness (three participants). Epworth sleepiness scale scores were higher in the high CBD formulation (1:20). Conclusions: In patients with pain and PD, mixed formulations of THC/CBD were tolerated with no serious AE. Considering the safety profile, future phase II studies should be considered.
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.
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 | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it