Cannabidiol safety considerations: Development of a potential acceptable daily intake value and recommended upper intake limits for dietary supplement use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consumer use of hemp-derived products continues to rise, underscoring the need to establish evidence-based safety guidance. The present study sought to develop recommendations for oral upper intake limits of cannabidiol (CBD) isolate. Sufficiently robust and reliable data for this purpose were identified from published human clinical trials and guideline-compliant toxicity studies in animal models. Based on the metrics used in this assessment, a potential Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) value of 0.43 mg/kg-bw/d (e.g., 30 mg/d for 70-kg adult) was determined for the general population based on liver effects in human studies. This value applies to the most sensitive subpopulations, including children, over a lifetime of exposure and from all sources, including food. For dietary supplements with adequate product labeling intended for use by healthy adults only, a potential Upper Intake Limit (UL) of 70 mg/d was determined based on reproductive effects in animals. For healthy adults, except those trying to conceive, or currently pregnant or lactating, a conservative dietary supplement UL of 100 mg/d was identified based on liver effects; however, as the target population excludes individuals at risk for liver injury, an alternative dietary supplement UL of 160 mg/d for this population can also 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.
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 | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".