ArticleJournal of cannabis research2025
Assessing patient perceptions of off-label cannabidiol use for insomnia through sentiment analysis.
Article in Journal of cannabis research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent global policy shifts have greatly expanded access to and the market for medicinal cannabis, broadening its availability for therapeutic use. These changes have led to a notable increase in off-label prescriptions of cannabidiol (CBD) based products, particularly for conditions such as epilepsy, anxiety, depression, insomnia, and chronic pain. Despite its growing popularity, clinical studies investigating the efficacy of CBD for insomnia remain limited, raising questions about its suitability for decision support. In this scenario, sentiment analysis provides an additional, low-cost, and measurable outcome of patients' perceptions, which has proven valuable in offering an additional layer of understanding regarding the perceived effectiveness of treatments. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess patients' perception regarding off-label CBD use for insomnia through sentiment analysis.
methodsEnglish-language tweets related to CBD use for insomnia were collected from June 25, 2018, to January 9, 2023. The data was cleaned, and a representative subset of comments was manually labeled by experts. Then, a ROBERTA-based model was trained to automatically classify the remaining tweets in the database as either signals or noise. Finally, topic modeling and sentiment analysis were performed on the database of signal tweets.
resultsFrom the 74,562 unique comments retrieved, 25,005 were classified as relevant based on both manual labeling and predictions made by the validated model. Topic modeling revealed eleven major themes, including the perceived efficacy of CBD for anxiety, pain, and insomnia, as well as practical considerations regarding treatment routines and preparation preferences. Sentiment analysis revealed positive feedback regarding CBD's use for insomnia, indicating that most users perceive it as an effective treatment for this condition.
conclusionsThis study offers valuable insights into patient perceptions of off-label CBD use for insomnia, suggesting that CBD may indeed be beneficial for this condition, which aligns with existing, albeit limited, experimental evidence. Consequently, further research is necessary to confirm its efficacy. In this scenario, the application of sentiment analysis emerges as an effective tool for assessing patient perceptions, providing a richer context that complements the still limited evidence from traditional clinical trials on CBD use for insomnia.
trial registrationNot applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.