MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379057159 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16913

Toxicological safety assessment of HempChoice® hemp oil extract; a proprietary extract consisting of a high concentration of cannabidiol (CBD) in addition to other phytocannabinoids and terpenes derived from Cannabis sativaL

2023· article· en· W4379057159 on OpenAlexaff
Margitta Dziwenka, Robert W. Coppock, Michael Davidson, Marc A. Weder

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsNutrasource
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCannabidiolCannabisTerpeneTraditional medicineChemistryMedicineOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L.) primarily comprised of 55-75% cannabidiol (CBD), 1-15% other phytocannabinoids and 1-15% terpenes. The results of multiple safety studies demonstrated that it was non-mutagenic in an Ames and mammalian cell micronucleus. test and was well tolerated in a 14-day range-finding study at dose levels up to 96.03. mg/kg BW/day. In the 90-day study, no HempChoice® Hemp Oil Extract-related significant changes were noted in weekly BW, daily BW gain, food consumption, functional observational battery or motor activity assessment. In addition, no HempChoice® Hemp Oil Extract related mortalities, abnormal clinical observations and ophthalmological changes were reported. Some HempChoice® Hemp Oil Extract-related changes were reported in the hematology and clinical chemistry parameters evaluated. These changes were not outside the normal range and were considered reversible during the 28-day recovery period. No macroscopic findings were reported, and histopathological changes related to HempChoice® Hemp Oil Extract exposure were limited to adaptive changes in the liver which were not observed in the recovery group animals. The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for HempChoice® Hemp Oil Extract was determined to be 185.90 mg/kg BW/day in male and female Sprague-Dawley rats.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207