Sex Differences in Plasma, Adipose Tissue, and Central Accumulation of Cannabinoids, and Behavioral Effects of Oral Cannabis Consumption in Male and Female C57BL/6 Mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cannabis edibles are an increasingly popular form of cannabis consumption. Oral consumption of cannabis has distinct physiological and behavioral effects compared with injection or inhalation. An animal model is needed to understand the pharmacokinetics and physiological effects of oral cannabis consumption in rodents as a model for human cannabis edible use. METHODS: Adult male and female C57BL/6 mice received a single dose of commercially available cannabis oil (5 mg/kg Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol [THC]) by oral gavage. At 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 6 hours post exposure, plasma, hippocampus, and adipose tissue were collected for THC, 11-OH-THC, and THC-COOH measures. RESULTS: We report delayed time to peak THC and 11-OH-THC concentrations in plasma, brain, and adipose tissue, which is consistent with human pharmacokinetics studies. We also found sex differences in the cannabis tetrad: (1) female mice had a delayed hypothermic effect 6 hours post consumption, which was not present in males; (2) females had stronger catalepsy than males; (3) males were less mobile following cannabis exposure, whereas female mice showed no difference in locomotion but an anxiogenic effect at 3 hours post exposure; and (4) male mice displayed a longer-lasting antinociceptive effect of oral cannabis. CONCLUSIONS: Oral cannabis consumption is a translationally relevant form of administration that produces similar physiological effects as injection or vaping administration and thus should be considered as a viable approach for examining the physiological effects of cannabis moving forward. Furthermore, given the strong sex differences in metabolism of oral cannabis, these factors should be carefully considered when designing animal studies on the effects of cannabis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".