PROSPECTION OF MEDICINAL CANNABIS IN THE BRAZILIAN MARKET: PRODUCTS, PRODUCTION METHODS, USE & INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY (IP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The trajectory of medicinal Cannabis in Brazil began in academia in the 1970s, when Dr. Carlini published the first non-clinical study on rodents showing the bioprospecting of cannabidiol (CBD) as an anticonvulsant agent.Decades later, in 2014, medicinal Cannabis gained visibility with the case of girl Anny Fischer, who suffered from a rare and serious illness, allowing the family to gain authorization to import extracts containing high CBD and low delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.(THC) (> 0.2 mg).In the United States, the modern Cannabis industry is almost three decades old, beginning its rise in 1996 with the approval of medicinal use in California.Certainly, the prohibition of the Cannabis sativa L. plant favors difficult access to information about the therapeutic benefits linked to the legal Cannabis market.This review aims to introduce the basis of the production of legal cannabis products and present data from global and national markets.A bibliographical review was carried out based on NBR 10520 and 6023 (2002), on data released by the Canadian government, BDSA, ANVISA, Patient Associations and national and international patent banks.The results showed more than 250 imported products authorized by RDC335/2020, more than 60 products from associations and 18 products from national companies authorized by RDC 327/2019.In the area of Industrial Property, only 20 patent applications versus almost 70 thousand in the international market.We conclude that Brazil has a potentially promising market, at the beginning of its rise, and developing considerably, despite the prohibitions currently in force.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".