Therapeutic potential of cannabidiol (CBD) in anxiety disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cannabidiol (CBD), as one of the phytocannabinoids, has a wide range of therapeutic properties for various neuropsychiatric disorders due to central nervous system effects. These therapeutic properties demonstrated by preclinical and clinical studies encompass more than just anticonvulsant, anti-arthritic, analgesic, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antitumor, antiemetic, antipsychotic and neuroprotective effects. It has been hypothesized that CBD holds potential in the treatment of various neuropsychiatric and anxiety disorders. Thus, PRISMA was used as a guide for our systematic review. Eight of the 1550 articles screened in June 2023 were eligible for meta-analysis. Based on the 316 participants included in these eight articles, this meta-analysis revealed a substantial significant impact of CBD on anxiety with a considerable effect size (Hedges' g = -0.92, 95% CI -1.80 to -0.04). In addition, this meta-analysis focuses on the efficacy of CBD in treating anxiety disorders such as generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), social anxiety disorder (SAD), and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, caution should be exercised in interpreting our findings due to the limited size of the clinical sample, and additional trials ought to be carried out if deemed necessary.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".