Accidental cannabis ingestion in young children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
QUESTION: A 3-year-old girl was brought to my office by her caregiver because she was not acting like herself. She was excessively sleepy, difficult to rouse, and had poor balance. The caregiver reported cannabis products in the home in the form of gummies the caregiver takes for sleep and anxiety. What symptoms should prompt consideration of marijuana ingestion and how should accidental ingestion be managed? ANSWER: Cannabis is one of the most widely used drugs in the world. Many countries are decriminalizing and legalizing marijuana, but its negative impact on pediatric health is growing. Current evidence shows unintentional marijuana ingestion and severe toxicity are steadily increasing. Common symptoms of marijuana ingestion in young children are drowsiness, somnolence, nausea, and vomiting, with children being at high risk for severe symptoms of respiratory depression and seizures. Primary care providers should talk to families about issues surrounding marijuana in the home, including safe storage of products containing cannabis and when to suspect an accidental ingestion. Public health should focus on the packaging and distribution of edibles to prevent easy access and accidental ingestion by young children.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".