This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Cannabis Sativa SUBSP. Indica Top does in the body
An unapproved plant used for pain, nausea and muscle stiffness under state programmes.
The body already makes its own cannabis-like signalling molecules, which nerve cells release backwards across a synapse to tell the cell upstream to quieten down. THC is close enough in shape to hijack that system, but it arrives everywhere at once and stays far longer than the body's own version, which is switched off within seconds. The result is a broad, indiscriminate turning-down of neurotransmitter release across cortex, hippocampus, basal ganglia and cerebellum — which is why the effects span mood, memory, appetite, coordination and time perception rather than any one of them.
What happened in people
Standardised cannabinoids produced small improvements in pain and muscle stiffness, but only four of 79 studies had low bias risk.
✓ Reviewed first-read answer
Where this came from
A person wrote this and a reviewer approved it against this exact record. It carries no effect size.
A reviewer approved this against this record. The reviewed-claim record carrying the exact population and effect size does not exist yet.
No source is stored against this line.
The limit that matters most
Defined cannabinoid medicines with known doses are not the same as smoked flower of unknown strength.
Where it acts
CB1 receptors on presynaptic terminals throughout cortex, hippocampus, basal ganglia and cerebellum
Kind of result
Symptoms and quality of life
Supervision
Not usually supervised: sold as a supplement or food ingredient where recorded. That is a legal category, not a safety judgement.
What the registries record it as
The substance registry classes this as structurallydiverse.
FDA substance registry · FTS5RM302N · read 2026-08-29
It is recorded as coming from CANNABIS SATIVA SUBSP. INDICA WHOLE. The part recorded is leaf and twig.
FDA substance registry · FTS5RM302N · read 2026-08-29
The organism is Cannabis, a genus.
NCBI Taxonomy · 3482 · read 2026-08-29
The supplement label database classes it as botanical, under the name Cannabis.
No recorded sentence describes the change this makes in a way that stands on its own. The page opens with what it is taken for instead, and the recorded explanation follows below.
Shown as the opening line on this page.
The limit a reviewer approved as the one that matters most here.
The four opening statements run to 127 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Stand-in result
A stand-in result is a number measured because the real result takes too long.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like judging a journey by the speedometer rather than by arriving.
Where that stops being true. Speed does predict arrival. Many stand-in results do not predict the real one.
What people get wrong. A stand-in result is often reported as the result itself.
A surrogate endpoint substituted for a clinical endpoint, valid only where the substitution has been shown to hold.
Randomisation
Randomisation means chance decides who gets which treatment.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a coin toss deciding the groups.
Where that stops being true. A coin toss is fair once. Fairness here comes from doing it for everyone.
What people get wrong. It is thought to make groups identical. It makes them similar on average, including on things nobody measured.
Allocation of participants to arms by a chance process, so that unmeasured factors are balanced in expectation.
Absolute difference
An absolute difference is how many more people in a hundred were affected.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like counting heads in two rooms of a hundred.
Where that stops being true. Heads are easy to count. Study results carry a margin of error too.
What people get wrong. It is confused with a percentage change, which can look far larger.
The arithmetic difference in event rates between arms.
Confidence interval
A confidence interval is the range the true answer is likely to sit in.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a weather forecast giving a range rather than one number.
Where that stops being true. A forecast range covers tomorrow. This one covers what the study could resolve.
What people get wrong. The middle number is read as the answer. A range crossing zero means no change is still possible.
An interval estimate that would contain the true parameter in a stated proportion of repeated studies.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What was measured, goal by goal
One row for each goal a registered study measured something for. One column for each kind of thing that could be measured.
Registered studies list 40 outcome measures that RNAWiki could read. A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. 0 of the matched studies tested this substance, and 0 posted a result.
There is no single score. A strong test result and a weak life result are different facts.
Goals down the side, kinds of measurement across the top. Each cell says what kind of thing was registered, not what was found.
Goal
Life outcome
What a body can do
How a person feels
A test result
A step in the body
Harms
How long
Who was studied
Pain
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.
…Waiting for a reviewer4 registered symptom measure.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a test result for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.
—Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.
—Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.
…Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Strength
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
…Waiting for a reviewer1 registered performance measure of this kind.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a symptom measure for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a test result for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.
—Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.
—Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.
…Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Energy
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.
…Waiting for a reviewer1 registered symptom measure.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a test result for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.
—Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.
—Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.
…Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Mood
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.
…Waiting for a reviewer1 registered symptom measure.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a test result for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.
—Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.
—Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.
…Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Which registered measures put each goal on this table
Sorted by fixed word lists, version v1. A name the rules do not recognise stays unsorted rather than moving to the nearest column.
What each mark on this table means
∅ Nothing in the sources checked
No registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
… Waiting for a reviewer
4 registered symptom measure.
— Not recorded
Harms were not a registered measure for this goal.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Pain response, spasticity score and complete nausea and vomiting response versus placebo
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Whiting et al. 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis
How many people
6462
Study design
Systematic review of 79 randomised trials
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Nausea complete response OR 3.82 (95% CI 1.55 to 9.42); pain OR 1.41 (0.99 to 2.00); pain NRS WMD -0.46 (-0.80 to -0.11); Ashworth WMD -0.36 (-0.69 to -0.05)
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Only 4 of 79 trials were judged at low risk of bias, and cannabinoids carried an increased risk of short-term adverse events including serious ones.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Inhaled flower or concentrate, oral edible, oral oil, topical preparation
Interval reported. 95% CI 1
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Odds of first-episode psychotic disorder by pattern and potency of cannabis use
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
EU-GEI multicentre case-control study
How many people
2138
Study design
Observational case-control, 11 sites
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Daily use adjusted OR 3.2 (95% CI 2.2 to 4.1); daily high-potency use OR 4.8 (2.5 to 6.3)
Repeated elsewhere
Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Case-control design: association only. The population attributable fractions are calculated under an explicitly stated assumption of causality.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Inhaled flower or concentrate, oral edible, oral oil, topical preparation
Interval reported. 95% CI 2
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
RNAWiki holds 2 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How close this is to real life
The top step is something a person would feel or care about. The bottom is a guess from software. Filled steps are where evidence exists for this substance.
■Living longer, or avoiding a major eventEvidence recorded. Death, a heart attack, a stroke, a hospital stay.1 registered measure of this kind. No reviewed result.
■What a body can do day to dayEvidence recorded. Walking, dressing, breathing, recovering.2 registered measures of this kind.
■Measured performanceEvidence recorded. How much was lifted, how far was run, how fast.2 registered measures of this kind.
■Symptoms and quality of lifeEvidence recorded. Pain, tiredness, mood, sleep, as the person rated it.13 registered measures of this kind.
■A number that stands in for healthEvidence recorded. Cholesterol, blood sugar, bone density. A stand-in, not the thing itself.3 registered measures of this kind.
■A step measured inside a personEvidence recorded. Something measured in human tissue or human cells.A human record sits on the stored organism ladder.
□AnimalsNo evidence recorded. Mice, rats, dogs. Useful for ideas, not proof about people.No animal record is stored.
□Cells in a dishNo evidence recorded. Cells or chemistry on a bench, far from a whole body.No cell or bench record is stored.
□A guess from softwareNo evidence recorded. Nobody measured it. RNAWiki never publishes one as a finding.RNAWiki stores no prediction for this record. Software can suggest a link. RNAWiki does not publish one as a finding.
Higher on these steps means closer to something a person would feel. It does not mean better done.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Start
Cannabis Sativa SUBSP. Indica Top
What a person takes: Inhaled flower or concentrate, oral edible, oral oil, topical preparation.
The measurement behind this step
Route changes the drug substantially. Inhalation delivers THC within minutes and gives the user rapid feedback on dose. Oral dosing takes one to three hours and produces 11-hydroxy-THC through first-pass metabolism, a more potent CB1 agonist than the parent — the pharmacological basis for the well-documented pattern of accidental over-consumption with edibles. Concentrates raise the delivered dose per inhalation by an order of magnitude over dried flower.
Getting in
Inhaled, or eaten and converted into something stronger
Inhaled, it reaches the brain in minutes. Eaten, it takes an hour or more and the liver turns it into a metabolite that is more potent than the original — which is why edibles behave differently.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
Inhalation gives peak plasma THC within minutes with bioavailability of roughly 10 to 35%, highly dependent on inhalation topography. Oral bioavailability is about 6 to 20% with peak at 1 to 3 hours, and extensive first-pass conversion to 11-hydroxy-THC, which is CB1-active and crosses into the brain readily.
The molecule is extremely greasy. It leaves the blood into fatty tissue quickly and returns from it over days, which is why tests stay positive long after the effects have gone.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
Very high lipophilicity and 95 to 99% plasma protein binding. Rapid distribution into adipose tissue with slow redistribution; terminal elimination half-life in frequent users is measured in days. THC-COOH, the inactive carboxy metabolite, is the analyte urine screens detect.
Partially activates CB1 receptors everywhere at once
It docks into a receptor that normally responds to the body's own short-lived signalling molecules — but it arrives across the whole brain and stays for hours.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Partial agonism at CB1, a Gi/o-coupled receptor located presynaptically throughout cortex, hippocampus, basal ganglia, cerebellum and hypothalamus. Endogenous ligands anandamide and 2-arachidonoylglycerol are synthesised on demand and hydrolysed within seconds; THC is neither localised nor rapidly cleared.
Neurotransmitter release is turned down across many circuits
The receptor's job is to tell the upstream nerve cell to release less. Doing that everywhere produces effects on memory, appetite, mood, coordination and time sense together.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
CB1 activation inhibits adenylyl cyclase and presynaptic calcium channels, suppressing release of glutamate, GABA, dopamine and other transmitters. Circuit-specific consequences follow from receptor density: hippocampal CB1 for short-term memory, basal ganglia and cerebellum for movement, hypothalamic and mesolimbic for appetite and reward.
Symptom scores move a little; risk accrues with frequency and potency
In trials of defined cannabinoids the effects on pain and spasticity are real and small. The documented harms — psychosis risk, dependence, hyperemesis — track how often and how strongly a person uses.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Measured endpoints are 0-10 pain scales, the Ashworth spasticity scale and complete-response rates for chemotherapy-induced nausea. The psychosis association is dose-dependent by frequency and by THC concentration, with an adjusted odds ratio of 4.8 for daily high-potency use in EU-GEI. Tolerance to most effects develops with regular use, and a withdrawal syndrome with irritability, sleep disturbance and appetite change is recognised in DSM-5.
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 5 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Felt, measured, or meaningful
Three different things that get called the same word. Registered studies measured all three, and mixing them is how a blood test becomes a health claim.
Felt
Things a person could notice without a test.
neuropsychiatric inventory
tinnitus handicap inventory
numerical pain intensity
pain numeric rating scale
pain threshold
on the drug effects questionnaire
scores on the marijuana craving questionnaire short form
scores on the modified cigarette evaluation questionnaire
fatigue severity scale
becks depression inventory
and 3 more.
Measured
Things only a test, a scale or a device shows.
peak thc concentration
peak nicotine concentration
heart rate
leg strength
Meaningful
Things that change how a life goes, not only a number.
marijuana relapse
25 foot walk test
A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. A number moving is not the same as a life going better. The two are shown apart here.
Felt, but not shown to help. A person notices a change. No study showed it leads anywhere good.
Measured, but not felt. A number moves. The person notices nothing. Both can be true.
Measured, but not shown to matter. A number moves in the good direction. Nobody showed that lives went better.
Matters, but takes years. The result that counts may take longer than anyone would keep watching.
Names that fit none of the three (21)
behavioral measures
week 0 to week 3 in the rate of torque increase flexion
week 0 to week 3 in the rate of torque increase extension
week 0 to week 7 in the rate of torque increase flexion
lido machine rate of torque increase extension
subjective marijuana effects
psychomotor impairment
driving performance
thc adverse effects checklist and self reporting by the
brain reward circuit activation on fmri scan
resting state connectivity within the brain reward circuitry
delivered and retained doses
thc exposure
nicotine exposure
scores on the positive affect negative affect schedule
9 hole peg test
paced auditory serial addition test
incidence of treatment emergent adverse events
cue reactivity
cannabis self administration
These are harms, study-process measures, or names the rules did not recognise. They are shown rather than dropped.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
In the United States, adults under state medical or adult-use programmes; a smaller number under research authorisations. Across Europe, patients under national medical-cannabis schemes using standardised, analysed plant material rather than an unregulated supply.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
Where the result stopped carrying
Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome was doubted for years because an antiemetic causing intractable vomiting looked implausible, until independent case series accumulated
Only 4 of the 79 trials in the largest systematic review were judged at low risk of bias, which is the real state of this evidence base
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely.
On this record: Some registered studies measured things that match no goal on this page.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (10)
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Not available
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Inhaled flower or concentrate, oral edible, oral oil, topical preparation
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
Not usually supervised: sold as a supplement or food ingredient where recorded. That is a legal category, not a safety judgement.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
The identity record classes it as a supplement ingredient; no medicines register records an approval.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
Route changes the drug substantially. Inhalation delivers THC within minutes and gives the user rapid feedback on dose.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold. The rest of the recorded wording: Oral dosing takes one to three hours and produces 11-hydroxy-THC through first-pass metabolism, a more potent CB1 agonist than the parent — the pharmacological basis for the well-documented pattern of accidental over-consumption with edibles. Concentrates raise the delivered dose per inhalation by an order of magnitude over dried flower.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.
# Counted from records
Where this came from
A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.
Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
Acute effects include tachycardia, conjunctival injection, impaired short-term memory, impaired coordination and reaction time, and anxiety or panic, which is dose-related and commoner in inexperienced users. Acute psychotic symptoms can occur at high THC exposure. With regular use: a DSM-5 cannabis use disorder with a recognised withdrawal syndrome, cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome in a minority of chronic heavy users, and the dose-dependent association with psychotic disorder measured in EU-GEI. Smoking delivers combustion products; the respiratory evidence is confounded by concurrent tobacco use in most cohorts. Cannabis is not associated with fatal overdose through respiratory depression, because CB1 receptors are sparse in the brainstem respiratory centres.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Inhaled flower or concentrate, oral edible, oral oil, topical preparation
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
Inhalation delivers THC within minutes and gives the user rapid feedback on dose.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on which forms are sold. The rest of the recorded wording: Oral dosing takes one to three hours and produces 11-hydroxy-THC through first-pass metabolism, a more potent CB1 agonist than the parent — the pharmacological basis for the well-documented pattern of accidental over-consumption with edibles. Concentrates raise the delivered dose per inhalation by an order of magnitude over dried flower.
No source is stored against this line.
What is recorded as being sold
10395 marketed supplement labels list this ingredient, classed as amino acid/protein, botanical with nutrients, fat/fatty acid and other combinations.
Those labels carry all other, approved health and nutrient claims. A claim of that kind is written by the manufacturer and is not assessed by any regulator, so its presence says nothing about whether it is true.
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
A single-person plan is offered only as a structure for observing yourself. It never calculates an amount to take, and it cannot prove cause.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of Cannabis Sativa SUBSP. Indica Top studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That trial results from dronabinol, nabiximols and purified cannabinoids describe what inhaled plant material of unstated potency does
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That a whole-blood THC concentration indexes current impairment the way a blood alcohol concentration does
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the terpene profile of a named cultivar predicts a distinct clinical effect — the profile is measurable, the effect claim is not tested
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That Schedule III would make cannabis a prescribable medicine; FDA approval is a separate requirement no plant preparation has met
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
How fast does the body clear it?
The sources RNAWiki checked hold nothing for this field.
Why it matters. Without this, nothing on this page can say how long anything lasts.
What would answer it
A stored source that records it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Cannabis Sativa SUBSP. Indica Top are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
79 randomised trials: moderate-quality evidence in pain and spasticity, and small effects
In plain words
A JAMA review pooled 79 trials in 6,462 people. Cannabinoids beat placebo for chemotherapy nausea and moved pain and spasticity scores a little. Only four of the 79 trials were judged at low risk of bias.
What was measured
Pooled odds ratios and weighted mean differences for pain, spasticity and nausea across 79 randomised trials
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Whiting et al. searched 28 databases to April 2015 and included 79 randomised trials, 6,462 participants; 4 were judged at low risk of bias. Complete nausea and vomiting response was 47% versus 20% (OR 3.82, 95% CI 1.55 to 9.42, 3 trials). Pain response was 37% versus 31% (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.00, 8 trials) with a weighted mean difference of -0.46 points on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (95% CI -0.80 to -0.11, 6 trials). Ashworth spasticity fell by a weighted mean of -0.36 (95% CI -0.69 to -0.05, 7 trials). The authors graded evidence as moderate quality for chronic pain and spasticity and low quality for nausea and vomiting, HIV weight gain, sleep and Tourette syndrome, and recorded an increased risk of short-term adverse events including serious ones. Almost all the included trials used defined cannabinoid products, not smoked plant material.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
EU-GEI: daily use of high-potency cannabis carried nearly five times the odds of psychosis
In plain words
Across eleven European sites, people with a first episode of psychosis were far more likely to be daily users of high-strength cannabis. Where high-strength cannabis was common, first-episode rates were higher.
What was measured
Adjusted odds ratio for first-episode psychotic disorder by frequency and potency of cannabis use
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Multicentre case-control study, 901 patients aged 18 to 64 with first-episode psychosis and 1,237 population controls across 11 sites in Europe and Brazil, May 2010 to April 2015. Types of cannabis were classified by expected THC concentration into low potency (<10%) and high potency (>=10%). Daily use carried an adjusted odds ratio of 3.2 (95% CI 2.2 to 4.1) versus never use, rising to 4.8 (2.5 to 6.3) for daily use of high-potency types. Assuming causality, the population attributable fraction for high-potency cannabis was 12.2% (3.0 to 16.1) across all sites, 30.3% (15.2 to 40.0) in London and 50.3% (27.4 to 66.0) in Amsterdam. Site-level incidence correlated with prevalence of high-potency use (r=0.7, p=0.0286) and of daily use (r=0.8, p=0.0109). The design is case-control: it measures association and cannot exclude reverse causation or shared liability, and the authors state the causal assumption explicitly when reporting the attributable fractions.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The trials studied cannabinoids; the dispensary sells a plant
In plain words
The evidence base for medical cannabis is almost entirely built on defined drugs with known doses. Smoked flower of unknown potency is not the thing that was tested.
What was measured
That trial results obtained with dronabinol, nabiximols and purified cannabinoids transfer to inhaled plant material of unstated composition
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Of the 79 trials in the JAMA review, the interventions were overwhelmingly nabiximols, dronabinol, nabilone, purified cannabidiol and defined extracts — products with a stated milligram content and a fixed cannabinoid ratio. Whole-plant material is variable by cultivar, harvest, storage and preparation; the delivered dose from inhalation additionally depends on the person's inhalation pattern. The result is that a systematic review of "cannabinoids for medical use" cannot be read as a review of cannabis as consumed, and the direction of the discrepancy is not knowable in advance: the plant could be more effective than the isolate through additive constituents, or less, and no adequately powered trial of standardised whole-plant material against placebo exists for the main indications.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome: described in 2004, initially disbelieved
In plain words
Heavy long-term users can develop cycles of severe vomiting that stop when they stop using and come back when they restart. Hot showers relieve it, which is how the syndrome was first spotted.
What was measured
Symptom resolution on cessation and recurrence on rechallenge in a chronic-user case series
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Allen et al. described a series of chronic cannabis users in South Australia presenting with cyclical vomiting, in whom symptoms resolved on cessation and recurred on rechallenge, and who used compulsive hot bathing for relief. The paradox — an antiemetic drug causing intractable vomiting — meant the syndrome was doubted for years before independent case series accumulated. It is now a recognised presentation in emergency medicine. Frequency is not established; the syndrome is defined by the temporal relationship to use and by resolution on abstinence, which is also the only reliable treatment.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Federal rescheduling has been formally under way since May 2024 and is not finished
In plain words
The Justice Department proposed moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III in 2024. The hearing was cancelled, restarted, and began again in June 2026. Meanwhile FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana were moved to Schedule III by a separate final rule.
What was measured
Status of the marijuana rescheduling rulemaking as of this audit
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
A notice of proposed rulemaking published 21 May 2024 proposed transferring marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. DEA published a notice of hearing on 29 August 2024. On 28 April 2026 DEA withdrew that notice and terminated the pending hearing proceedings (91 FR 22778), and in the same issue published a new notice of hearing with proceedings beginning 29 June 2026 (91 FR 22777), citing Executive Order 14370. Separately and on the same date, a final rule (91 FR 22714) placed FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana in Schedule III, an action taken to satisfy United States obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The botanical itself remains in Schedule I while the rulemaking is open. Schedule III would not make cannabis a prescribable medicine: it would remove the Schedule I research barriers and the section 280E tax treatment, and leave FDA approval as a separate requirement no plant preparation has met.
Source
Federal Register 91 FR 22777, 91 FR 22778 and 91 FR 22714, all 28 April 2026, Drug Enforcement Administration
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
contested
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Blood THC is not a blood alcohol concentration, and per-se limits assume it is
In plain words
THC hides in body fat and leaks back out for days. In a frequent user, a blood level says how much has accumulated, not how impaired they are right now.
What was measured
That a whole-blood delta-9-THC concentration indexes current impairment the way a blood alcohol concentration does
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Delta-9-THC is highly lipophilic and distributes into adipose tissue, from which it redistributes over days to weeks in frequent users. Blood concentration therefore falls rapidly after inhalation while impairment persists, and remains detectable in frequent users long after impairment has resolved — the two curves diverge in opposite directions in different populations. The consequence is that a per-se blood threshold of the kind used for alcohol has a much weaker relationship to functional impairment, and this is a measurement fact about the analyte, not a policy opinion. The analytical measurement is reliable; the inference drawn from it is the problem.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
5 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How this medicine reached us — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
A plant whose principal active molecule is well characterised and whose preparations are not, with moderate-quality trial evidence for cannabinoids in pain and spasticity, a replicated dose-dependent association with psychotic disorder, and a federal schedule that has been under formal review since 2024.
Recorded evidence blocks (10)
Q1
What did Cannabis Sativa SUBSP. Indica Top's largest trial (2000 people) and its longest (8.8 years) measure?
2000 people in Cannabis Sativa SUBSP. Indica Top's largest registered study, 8.8 years in its longest registered window, measuring To assess the delivery of cannabinoids and metabolites by way of vaporization and to compare plasma levels to those obtained from smoking an identical amount of marijuana from a cigarette. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
55 phase1, 47 phase2, 15 na, 9 na or unstated, 8 early phase1, 5 phase3, 1 phase4; NCT03766971; 2028-11-30. Last human test completed 2026, NCT07401628.
Interpretation These counts include studies where Cannabis Sativa SUBSP. Indica Top was a comparison treatment, a background treatment or an exposure in an observational study, and the longest window may be a planned end date. Trial roles have not yet been classified for this record.
Show the evidence
phase1
55
phase2
47
na
15
na or unstated
9
early phase1
8
phase3
5
2 more recorded rows
phase4
1
Last recorded human testNCT07401628
2026-07-14
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q2
Cannabis Sativa SUBSP. Indica Top was tested only in human — what did it show?
Interpretation To assess the delivery of cannabinoids and metabolites by way of vaporization and to compare plasma levels to those obtained from smoking an identical amount… — the recorded outcome words.
Show the evidence
humanNCT00241592
biomarker; To assess the delivery of cannabinoids and metabolites by way of vaporization and to compare plasma levels to those obtained from smoking an identical amount of marijuana from a cigarette.; 122
accrual/recruitment (4), funding/business (3) and other (8): Cannabis Sativa SUBSP. Indica Top's stop wording, clustered. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
"Unable to complete subject recruitment"; 15 of 122 registered studies
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT00682929
terminated; "Unable to complete subject recruitment"
NCT03172741
withdrawn; "Did not pursue study"
NCT03246113
terminated; "Lack of subject interest due to study design"
NCT03247244
terminated; "Recruitment/enrollment took too long"
NCT03251326
terminated; "Recruitment difficulties"
NCT03555968
withdrawn; "Logistical issues"
9 further recorded trials
NCT03766971
suspended; "In response to quality assurance and compliance concerns, OHRP issued an FWA restriction on NYSPI research that included a pause of human research as of June 23, 2023."
NCT03994926
terminated; "COVID-19 Pandmic halted study"
NCT04100590
terminated; "During a piloting phase with our staff, the technology/eye-tracking device did not collect outcomes as expected."
NCT04269993
terminated; "Termination of study funding"
NCT05114460
terminated; "The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Human Research Protections issued an FWA restriction on NYSPI research that included a pause of human subjects research as of June 23, 2023. Recruitment for this trial will not…"
NCT05273658
withdrawn; "Termination of funding"
NCT05427630
suspended; "Inadequate funding"
NCT05563948
suspended; "In response to quality assurance and compliance concerns, OHRP issued an FWA restriction on NYSPI research that included a pause of human research as of June 23, 2023."
NCT06755346
withdrawn; "We terminated the study. Since the FDA did not approve our study, we could not begin it. I have terminated it."
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q4
Human studies of Cannabis Sativa SUBSP. Indica Top used Marijuana with < 0.01% of THC and CBD — over how long?
Human studies of Cannabis Sativa SUBSP. Indica Top used "Marijuana with < 0.01% of THC and CBD". ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
4 recorded entries; human; also "Cannabis (0%/ THC / 0% CBD)", "Cannabis 100 mg", "Cannabis (30% THC Concentrate)"
Show the evidence
human
NCT04800159
Marijuana with < 0.01% of THC and CBD
NCT04970342
Cannabis (0%/ THC / 0% CBD)
NCT05407285
Cannabis 100 mg
NCT07105449
Cannabis (30% THC Concentrate)
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q5
Could one person measure Cannabis Sativa SUBSP. Indica Top's effect on marijuana relapse?
Marijuana relapse: measured in Cannabis Sativa SUBSP. Indica Top's trials.
Interpretation marijuana relapse is the recorded endpoint.
Show the evidence
biomarkers
marijuana relapse; 2026-09-01
behavioral measures; 2026-09-01
week 0 to week 3 in the rate of torque increase flexion; 2026-09-01
week 0 to week 3 in the rate of torque increase extension; 2026-09-01
week 0 to week 7 in the rate of torque increase flexion; 2026-09-01
lido machine rate of torque increase extension; 2026-09-01
14 more recorded rows
biomarkers
subjective marijuana effects; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
neuropsychiatric inventory; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
psychomotor impairment; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
driving performance; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
thc adverse effects checklist and self reporting by the; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
brain reward circuit activation on fmri scan; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
resting state connectivity within the brain reward circuitry; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
tinnitus handicap inventory; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
numerical pain intensity; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
pain numeric rating scale; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
pain threshold; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
delivered and retained doses; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
peak thc concentration; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
peak nicotine concentration; 2026-09-01
human trials at or under30
64
Not recorded for this substance
a recorded half-life
smallest human trial
0; NCT01969474; PHASE1; the smallest recorded human enrolment at or below 30; the registry states no direction of its result; WITHDRAWN
Q6
Which of 25 foot walk test, 9 hole peg test and becks depression inventory did Cannabis Sativa SUBSP. Indica Top's trials measure?
25 foot walk test, 9 hole peg test and becks depression inventory lead 40 outcome terms across Cannabis Sativa SUBSP. Indica Top's trials. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
week 0 to week 3 in the rate of torque increase extension, week 0 to week 7 in the rate of torque increase flexion, lido machine rate of torque increase extension, subjective marijuana effects, neuropsychiatric inventory and psychomotor impairment follow.
Show the evidence
marijuana relapse
1
behavioral measures
1
week 0 to week 3 in the rate of torque increase flexion
1
week 0 to week 3 in the rate of torque increase extension
1
week 0 to week 7 in the rate of torque increase flexion
1
lido machine rate of torque increase extension
1
14 more recorded rows
subjective marijuana effects
1
neuropsychiatric inventory
1
psychomotor impairment
1
driving performance
1
thc adverse effects checklist and self reporting by the
1
brain reward circuit activation on fmri scan
1
resting state connectivity within the brain reward circuitry
1
tinnitus handicap inventory
1
numerical pain intensity
1
pain numeric rating scale
1
pain threshold
1
delivered and retained doses
1
peak thc concentration
1
peak nicotine concentration
1
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q7
Which of Cannabis Sativa SUBSP. Indica Top's 27 ongoing trials reports first?
27 registered trials of Cannabis Sativa SUBSP. Indica Top are open; earliest completion 2025-06-30. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
Change in pain and swelling, as verified by objective nerve conduction testing; Standard deviation of lateral position; latest 2031-09
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT03734731
"Cannabis Vs Opioids Pain Management Objective Testing Comparisons"; n 1000; "Change in pain and swelling, as verified by objective nerve conduction testing"; 2027-02-28
NCT04325958
"Age Differences in the Effects of Cannabis on Simulated Driving"; n 128; "Standard deviation of lateral position"; 2027-03
NCT04800159
"Cannabis Effects on Antiretroviral Therapy Pharmacokinetics and Neurotoxicity"; n 40; "1a i. Antiretroviral therapy (ART) drug concentration in blood"; 2026-04-30
NCT05322213
"THC Effects on Glucose in Type 2 Diabetes"; n 30; "Change in Glucose Disposal Rate"; 2028-06
NCT05432284
"Behavioral Pharmacology of THC and Beta-Myrcene"; n 32; "Self-reported Drug Effect as assessed by the Drug Effect Questionnaire (DEQ)"; 2028-11
NCT05526196
"Combined and Separate Effects of Cannabis and Tobacco: Psychomotor, Subjective and Physiological Outcomes"; n 60; "Standard deviation of lateral position"; 2027-03-01
14 further recorded trials
NCT05602649
"The Impact of Product Formulation on the Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Cannabis Edibles"; n 80; "Working memory performance as assessed by the Correct Trials on Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task (PASAT)"; 2027-01
NCT05836857
"The Use of Cannabis (Marijuana) and Cannabidiol (CBD) Among Cancer Patients: A Pilot Study"; n 100; "Cannabis (Marijuana) and CBD (Cannabidiol for Cancer Pain Survey"; 2027-05-31
NCT05865470
"Age-dependent Effects of Smoked and Oral Delta-9-THC"; n 103; "Subject-rated drug effects"; 2029-10-15
NCT05969314
"To Check Safety of Ayurvedic Oral Cannabis in Breast and Head and Neck Cancer"; n 12; "To establish safe dose of oral cannabis preparation"; 2025-06-30
NCT05999383
"Understanding the Clinical Pharmacology of Marijuana-Tobacco Co-administration"; n 48; "Change in peak plasma concentration of THC"; 2028-02-01
NCT06137365
"Cannabis for Obesity Trial"; n 40; "Weight change"; 2028-03-31
NCT06222268
"Wayne State Warriors Marijuana Clinical Research Program: Cannabinoid Adjunct to Prolonged Exposure & Recovery"; n 280; "Treatment Response"; 2031-09
NCT06259916
"Distinguishing Alcohol Intoxication, Cannabis Intoxication and Co-intoxication Using Electroencephalography (EEG)"; n 99; "Electroencephalography (EEG) Objective Cognitive Function Measures--Amplitude (microvolts)"; 2027-05-30
NCT06293040
"Vaporized Cannabis Administration and Co-Administration of Alcohol on Impairment"; n 90; "DRUID application global impairment score"; 2027-12
NCT06351540
"Examining the Role of Tolerance on Dose-dependent Effects of Acute THC on Oculomotor and Cognitive Performance"; n 40; "Commission Errors"; 2027-07-01
NCT06629389
"Clinical Trial with Cannabidiol (Kanbis®) for Parkinson Disease Symptoms"; n 88; "Number of patients with advers events related to treatment acording to CTCAE v5.0"; 2026-11
NCT06859710
"THC and CBD: A Controlled Human Study Probing a Harm Reduction Strategy"; n 30; "Subject-rated drug effects of abuse liability"; 2028-09-01
NCT06859723
"High Potency Cannabis: Acute and Protracted Effects"; n 30; "Subject-rated drug effects of abuse liability"; 2028-07-01
NCT07105449
"THC Titration of High-Potency Cannabis Concentrates"; n 48; "Pharmacokinetics (blood levels of THC and metabolites)"; 2028-09-30
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q8
Which running trial of Cannabis Sativa SUBSP. Indica Top could settle insulin sensitivity?
NCT05322213 measures Change in Glucose Disposal Rate, reading out 2028-06.
1 open trial; n 30; "THC Effects on Glucose in Type 2 Diabetes"
Show the evidence
TrialNCT05322213
"THC Effects on Glucose in Type 2 Diabetes"; n 30; "Change in Glucose Disposal Rate"; 2028-06
Q9
Which 27 trials of Cannabis Sativa SUBSP. Indica Top posted no result?
Posted no result
27 of 27 completed trials
Registrations
NCT00241592, NCT00254761, NCT00373503, NCT00781001, NCT01118364 and NCT01740960, and 21 more
Completion dates
oldest 2005-05; newest 2023-11-14
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT00241592
2005-05
NCT00254761
2006-02
NCT00373503
2008-09
NCT00781001
2011-06
NCT01118364
2011-12
NCT01740960
2012-12
14 further recorded trials
NCT01302340
2013-12
NCT01608217
2014-06
NCT02165176
2014-09
NCT00678730
2014-09-11
NCT03676166
2017-01-17
NCT01983267
2017-04-26
NCT03994640
2019-01-01
NCT03328676
2019-08-18
NCT02961309
2019-09-30
NCT03546790
2019-09-30
NCT03813602
2019-11-15
NCT04945031
2020-12-31
NCT04230460
2021-05-27
NCT04965740
2022-02-15
Q10
At the median, Cannabis Sativa SUBSP. Indica Top's trials enrolled 30 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
30
Largest enrolment
2000
Registered trials counted
122
Where it is registeredIdentifiers, relations and other names
ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Europe PMC — metadata only, under the recorded legal gate · derived from this page's own recorded fields; no external licence
✗ required summary fields resolved: 4 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 4 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.