MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cannabis Use Disorder Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalizations and 5-Year Mortality

2025· article· en· W4407196018 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Daniel T. Myran, Michael Pugliese, André J. McDonald, Jennifer Xiao, Benedikt Fischer, Yaron Finkelstein, Peter Tanuseputro, Joseph Firth, Amir H. Pakpour, Chih‐Wei Hsu, Wing Chung Chang, Marco Solmi

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityHospital for Sick ChildrenSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonSimon Fraser UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of the Fraser ValleyBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
FundersHealth CanadaGovernment of CanadaH. Lundbeck A/SCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchManchester Biomedical Research CentreUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentHazard ratioPopulationEmergency medicineCohortRetrospective cohort studyCohort studyPoison controlCannabisPsychiatryEnvironmental healthConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Cannabis use disorders (CUD) are associated with adverse health effects, including mental disorders and motor vehicle collision-related injuries. However, little is known about whether CUDs are associated with increased mortality risk. Objective: To examine whether individuals receiving incident hospital-based care (an emergency department visit or hospitalization) for a CUD is associated with increased risk of death. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based retrospective cohort study included all individuals aged 15 to 105 years living in Ontario, Canada, between 2006 and 2021 (n = 11 622 571 individuals). Overall and cause-specific mortality were compared between individuals with incident hospital-based CUD care and age- and sex-matched members of the general population or individuals with hospital-based care for other substance use disorders using cause-specific hazard models adjusted for comorbid mental health, substance use, and chronic health conditions. Statistical analysis was performed from September to December 2024. Exposure: Incident hospital-based CUD care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall and cause-specific mortality identified using vital statistics. Results: The matched analysis included 527 972 individuals (mean [SD] age, 29.9 [13.6] years; 330 034 [62.5%] female) with a median (IQR) follow-up of 5 (3-9) years; 106 994 had incident CUD. Within 5 years of incident hospital-based CUD care, 3770 individuals (3.5%) died compared with 3770 (0.6%) of matched general population members. After adjusting for comorbid conditions, individuals with incident hospital-based CUD care were at increased risk of death relative to the general population (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.79 [95% CI, 2.62-2.97]). Individuals with hospital-based CUD care were at increased risk of all investigated types of death and particularly elevated risk of death by suicide (aHR, 9.70 [95% CI, 6.04-15.57]), trauma (aHR, 4.55 [95% CI, 3.55-5.82]), opioid poisoning (aHR, 5.03 [95% CI, 2.86-8.84]), other drug poisonings (aHR, 4.56 [95% CI, 3.11-6.68]), and lung cancer (aHR, 3.81 [95% CI, 2.39-6.07]) relative to the general population. Compared with an individual with hospital-based care for CUD, individuals with hospital-based care for alcohol (aHR, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.26-1.34]), stimulants (aHR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.62-1.75]), and opioids (aHR, 2.19 [95% CI, 2.10-2.27]) were at relatively increased risk of death within 5 years. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of all residents of Ontario, Canada, individuals with incident hospital-based CUD care were at markedly increased risk of death compared with the general population. These findings suggest important clinical and policy implications, given global trends toward cannabis legalization and market commercialization accompanied by increasing cannabis use and CUDs.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.316 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations26
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207