The impact of cannabidiol placebo on responses to an acute stressor: A replication and proof of concept study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Our group has previously reported that cannabidiol (CBD) expectancy alone blunts markers of stress, particularly during anticipation, but it is not clear the extent to which such findings were specific to the methods utilized. Aims: To examine CBD-related placebo effects on stress reactivity and anticipation and to validate a protocol to be used in a neuroimaging study. Methods: Forty-eight healthy adults (24 female) were randomly assigned to be informed that they ingested a CBD-containing oil or a CBD-free oil despite receiving the same oil (CBD-free). Following oil administration, participants engaged in a laboratory stressor and were then incorrectly informed that they would engage in a second more difficult task following a waiting period. Subjective state (sedation, energy, stress, anxiety) and heart rate were assessed at baseline, post-oil administration, immediately following the first stressor, and while anticipating the second stressor. Results: Subjective stress and anxiety were significantly elevated immediately following the stressor ( p- values < 0.001). CBD expectancy was associated with increased subjective sedation ( p < 0.01) and tended to be associated with blunted subjective stress ( p = 0.053). Post hoc within-condition pairwise compassions suggested a return to pre-stressor levels during the anticipation period in the CBD condition for subjective stress and anxiety ( p = 0.784, 0.845), but not the CBD-free condition ( p = 0.025, 0.045). Conclusion: Results replicate and extend previous findings that CBD expectancy alone can impact stress- and anxiety-relevant responses in the laboratory context.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".