Medical cannabis for children: Evidence and recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interest in using cannabis products for a medical purpose in children under the age of 18 years is increasing. There are many medical cannabis products available that can include cannabidiol (CBD) or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), or both. Despite many therapeutic claims, there are few rigorous studies to inform the dosing, safety, and efficacy of medical cannabis in paediatric clinical practice. This statement reviews the current evidence and provides recommendations for using medical cannabis in children. Longer-term (2-year) reports support the sustained tolerability and efficacy of cannabidiol therapy for patients with Lennox-Gastaut and Dravet syndromes. CBD-enriched cannabis extracts containing small amounts of THC have been evaluated in a small number of paediatric patients, and further research is needed to inform clinical practice guidelines. Given the widespread use of medical cannabis in Canada, paediatricians should be prepared to engage in open, ongoing discussions with families about its potential benefits and risks, and develop individualized plans that monitor efficacy, reduce harms, and mitigate drug-drug interactions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".