Safety Considerations in Cannabinoid-Based Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sven Gottschling,1 Oyedeji Ayonrinde,2 Arun Bhaskar,3 Marc Blockman,4 Oscar D’Agnone,5 Danial Schecter,6 Luis David Suárez Rodríguez,7 Sherry Yafai,8 Claude Cyr9 1Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Homburg (Saar), Germany; 2Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; 3Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK; 4University of Cape Town and Groot Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa; 5The OAD Clinic, London, UK; 6Spectrum Therapeutics, Smiths Falls, Ontario, Canada; 7Centro de Medicina Integrativa Sanar, Playa del Carmen, Mexico; 8The Releaf Institute, Santa Monica, CA, USA; 9McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaCorrespondence: Claude CyrMcGill University, 3500 DeMaisonneuve Boulevard, Suite 1520, Montreal, Quebec H3Z3C1, CanadaTel +1-514-264-9657Email claudecyrmd@gmail.comAbstract: Cannabinoids are a diverse class of chemical compounds that are increasingly recognized as potential therapeutic options for a range of conditions. While many studies and reviews of cannabinoids focus on efficacy, safety is much less well reported. Overall assessment of the safety of cannabinoid-based medicines is confounded by confusion with recreational cannabis use as well as different study designs, indications, dosing, and administration methods. However, clinical studies in registered products are increasingly available, and this article aims to discuss and clarify what is known regarding the safety profiles of cannabinoid-based medicines, focusing on the medical and clinical safety evidence and identifying areas for future research. The two most well-studied cannabinoids are Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), or its synthetic variants (dronabinol, nabilone), and cannabidiol (CBD). Across diverse indications, dizziness and fatigue are generally the most common adverse events experienced by patients receiving THC or combined THC and CBD. Patients receiving THC may experience adverse cognitive effects and impairment in psychomotor skills, with implications for driving and some occupations, while CBD may help to lower the psychotropic effects of THC when used in combination. Studies on dependency and addiction in a medical context are limited, but have shown inconsistent findings regarding misuse potential. Generally, the recommended route of administration is oral ingestion, as smoking medicinal cannabinoid products potentially releases mutagenic and carcinogenic by-products. There are several potential drug–drug interactions and contraindications for cannabinoid-based medicines, which physicians should account for when making prescribing decisions. The available evidence shows that, as with any other class of pharmaceuticals, cannabinoid-based medicines are associated with safety risks which should be assessed in the context of potential therapeutic benefits. Each patient should be assessed on an individual basis and physicians must rely on informed, evidence-based decision-making when determining whether a cannabinoid-based medicine could be an appropriate treatment option.Keywords: cannabis, cannabinoid, safety, cannabidiol, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol
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 | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".