Survival Rates, Quality of Life and Side Effects of Medical Cannabis in Patients with Palliative Cancer in Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and safety in patients with palliative cancer who used cannabis and morphine across dimensions such as survival rate, hospital admission rate, number of hospital days, quality of life, and side effects. A retrospective cohort observational study was conducted based on medical records from January 1, 2020 – March 30, 2023. Additionally, a prospective cohort study was conducted using the EQ-5D-5L and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) quality of life scales. The study included 98 cancer patients receiving palliative care in six hospitals. The results showed that the median survival time of the cannabis group (CG) was 0.69 years, and the morphine group (MG) was 0.52 years (p = 0.168). The CG had a lower hospital admission rate than the MG, p>0.05. The CG had fewer number of hospital days than the MG, p<0.05. The quality of life (QOL) assessment by ESAS indicated that the CG had a better QOL than the MG, p<0.05. The EQ-5D-5L tool also demonstrated that the QOL score for the CG was higher than that of the MG, p<0.05. The MG had higher levels of liver enzymes, including AST and ALT than those who received cannabis, p<0.05. These findings suggest that medical cannabis may be beneficial for palliative cancer patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".