MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404441315 · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2024.108203

Cannabis use regimens in trauma-exposed individuals: Associations with cannabis use quantity and frequency

2024· article· en· W4404441315 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Snooks, Philip G. Tibbo, Pablo Romero‐Sanchiz, Sarah DeGrace, Sherry H. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueAddictive Behaviors · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCannabisMedicinePsychiatryDronabinolPsychologyPoison controlClinical psychologyMedical emergencyCannabinoidInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• PRN and PRN+ cannabis use regimens made up most regimens used by trauma-exposed cannabis users (52.1 % and 39.4 %, respectively), while RS regimens only made up 8.5 %. • 100 % (9/9) of individuals who began as RS users moved on to a regimen that included PRN use (PRN or PRN+). • The largest proportion of the sample began and remained as PRN users (40.2 % of the total sample or 52.7 % of those who were originally PRN users (37/70)). • Those using cannabis with both PRN-only and PRN+ regimens used cannabis significantly more often per month than those using with RS regimens. • No significant differences were found between any of the regimens by dose per occasion. People with trauma histories have an increased odds of cannabis use. Little is known about the frequency or consequences of different cannabis use regimens in cannabis users with trauma histories. Individuals with anxiety disorders tend to administer benzodiazepines in a pro re nata (PRN; i.e., as needed) as opposed to regularly scheduled (RS, e.g., twice daily [BID], three times daily [TID]) manner. Although physicians tend to prescribe benzodiazepines on a PRN regimen to minimize use, this regimen is paradoxically associated with greater use levels. Indeed, PRN administration regimens may increase use via negative reinforcement processes. We extended this older benzodiazepine literature to cannabis by examining regimen of cannabis use among 94 trauma-exposed cannabis users (mean age = 35.1 years; 52.1 % male; 23.4 % with cannabis prescription). Participants reported their initial and current cannabis use regimen (PRN vs. RS vs. both [‘PRN+’]) and their past month cannabis use frequency (use occasions in last month) and quantity (grams/use occasion). Consistent with patterns in benzodiazepine research, PRN (47.1 % of sample) and PRN+ (43.5 % of sample) were more common than RS regimens (9.4 % of sample). Also consistent with patterns seen with benzodiazepines, our sample moved toward PRN regimens from initial to current use: e.g., 100 % of initial RS users switched to a regimen that included PRN use. Consistent with predictions emerging from learning theory, PRN and PRN+ cannabis users reported significantly higher cannabis use frequencies compared to RS users ( p ’s < 0.01). Unexpectedly, there were no significant differences between cannabis use regimen groups for quantity of cannabis/occasion. While limited by their cross-sectional nature, with longitudinal replication, result may have implications for identifying cannabis use regimens that minimize frequency of use and thereby reduce risk for negative health outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAddictive BehaviorsSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207