MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391294617 · doi:10.2196/49965

Oral Cannabidiol for Seborrheic Dermatitis in Patients With Parkinson Disease: Randomized Clinical Trial

2024· article· en· W4391294617 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Isaac Weber, Caterina Zagona‐Prizio, Torunn E Sivesind, Madeline Adelman, Mindy D Szeto, Ying Liu, Stefan Sillau, Jacquelyn Bainbridge, Jost Klawitter, Cristina Sempio, Cory A. Dunnick, Maureen A. Leehey, Robert P. Dellavalle

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Dermatology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesColorado Department of Public Health and Environment
KeywordsCannabidiolSeborrheic dermatitisMedicineDermatologyParkinson's diseaseDiseaseClinical trialRandomized controlled trialPsychiatryInternal medicineCannabis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Seborrheic dermatitis (SD) affects 18.6%-59% of persons with Parkinson disease (PD), and recent studies provide evidence that oral cannabidiol (CBD) therapy could reduce sebum production in addition to improving motor and psychiatric symptoms in PD. Therefore, oral CBD could be useful for improving symptoms of both commonly co-occurring conditions. Objective This study investigates whether oral CBD therapy is associated with a decrease in SD severity in PD. Methods Facial photographs were collected as a component of a randomized (1:1 CBD vs placebo), parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessing the efficacy of a short-term 2.5 mg per kg per day oral sesame solution CBD-rich cannabis extract (formulated to 100 mg/mL CBD and 3.3 mg/mL THC) for reducing motor symptoms in PD. Participants took 1.25 mg per kg per day each morning for 4 ±1 days and then twice daily for 10 ±4 days. Reviewers analyzed the photographs independently and provided a severity ranking based on the Seborrheic Dermatitis Area and Severity Index (SEDASI) scale. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics, as well as posttreatment SEDASI averages and the presence of SD, were analyzed with 2-tailed t tests and Pearson χ2 tests. SEDASI was analyzed with longitudinal regression, and SD was analyzed with generalized estimating equations. Results A total of 27 participants received a placebo and 26 received CBD for 16 days. SD severity was low in both groups at baseline, and there was no treatment effect. The risk ratio for patients receiving CBD, post versus pre, was 0.69 (95% CI 0.41-1.18; P=.15), compared to 1.20 (95% CI 0.88-1.65; P=.26) for the patients receiving the placebo. The within-group pre-post change was not statistically significant for either group, but they differed from each other (P=.07) because there was an estimated improvement for the CBD group and an estimated worsening for the placebo group. Conclusions This study does not provide solid evidence that oral CBD therapy reduces the presence of SD among patients with PD. While this study was sufficiently powered to detect the primary outcome (efficacy of CBD on PD motor symptoms), it was underpowered for the secondary outcomes of detecting changes in the presence and severity of SD. Multiple mechanisms exist through which CBD can exert beneficial effects on SD pathogenesis. Larger studies, including participants with increased disease severity and longer treatment periods, may better elucidate treatment effects and are needed to determine CBD’s true efficacy for affecting SD severity. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03582137; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03582137

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR DermatologySame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207