Quality of life and cannabis use among patients with drug‐resistant epilepsy—An observational study from a Canadian tertiary care referral center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Very few publications have reported the impact of artisanal cannabis use on overall quality of life among people with drug-resistant epilepsy. This study aimed to evaluate the association of artisanal cannabis use among adults with drug-resistant epilepsy with quality of life, and to determine if an association exists between Quality-of-Life in Epilepsy Inventory-31 (QOLIE-31) 'T scores' and different clinical variables. METHODS: This study included patients admitted to a Canadian tertiary care epilepsy center as part of a larger study. These patients were confirmed to have drug-resistant epilepsy by an epileptologist at the Ambulatory Epilepsy Clinic. Patients were categorized into cannabis users (CAN group) (n = 25) and Non-cannabis users (Non-CAN group) (n = 21). Data was collected on RedCap® for epilepsy and cannabis use details. These were analyzed for an association using a binary multivariable logistic regression model between QOLIE-31 'T scores' and age, sex, epilepsy duration, age at initiation of use, duration of cannabis use and psychiatric related comorbidity for all patients. Additionally, different 'T subscores' of the questionnaire were compared between the CAN group and Non-CAN group. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference between the CAN group and Non-CAN group for the T subscore 'energy and fatigue' (p = .004) was found, with the CAN group scoring higher. However, for the 'overall T score' between the two groups there was no statically significant difference (p = .11). Additionally, a significant negative correlation between 'overall T score' and cannabis use disorder (p = .032) was found. SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides new data on association of quality of life in epilepsy with cannabis use and can serve as a foundation for larger future studies to better assess this association.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".