Potential Impact Of Medical Cannabis Treatment On Common Symptoms Improvement Using The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale Among Cancer Patients In Quebec – Canada : Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Therapeutic applications of medical cannabis within the cancer population, particularly for common symptoms, and how treatment can impact quality of life are still under- investigated.Methods: The Cannabis Pilot Project (CPP) accepted patients already receiving supportive care but referred to the CPP because they did not achieve adequate symptom relief. This study examined the efficacy of cannabis treatment for common symptoms among cancer patients using the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS-r).Results: Sixty-five patients have been enrolled (mean age 61 years; 52% female) in the CPP over seven months. By the second follow-up, a clinically meaningful improvement by one point in a 0- 10 scale was reported: up to 50% for pain; 48% for tiredness; 52% for drowsiness; 37% for nausea; 48% for lack of appetite; 35% for shortness of breath; 48% for depression; 37% for anxiety; 67% for wellbeing. Mean ESAS score improved significantly for tiredness (5.79 vs 4.76 vs 3.76, p- value 0.017); drowsiness (2.86 vs 1.97 vs 1.28, p-value 0.023); lack of appetite (3.95 vs 2.55 vs 1.72, p-value 0.004); and wellbeing (4.75 vs 3.29 vs 2.92, p-value <0.001). Mild side-effects not requiring suspension of treatment (i.e feeling light-headedness in the morning) were reported by 15.5% of patients at 1st follow-up and 14.8% at 2nd follow-up.Conclusion: Cannabis treatment seems to positively impact symptom burden in cancer patients, with clinically and statistically significant improvements in wellbeing, tiredness, drowsiness and lack of appetite.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".