Comparative Genetic Structure of Cannabis sativa Including Federally Produced, Wild Collected, and Cultivated Samples.

Currently in the United States, the sole licensed facility to cultivate Cannabis sativa L. for research purposes is the University of Mississippi, which is funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Studies researching Cannabis flower consumption rely on NIDA-supplied "research grade marijuana." Previous research found that cannabinoid levels of NIDA-supplied Cannabis do not align with commercially available Cannabis. We sought to investigate the genetic identity of Cannabis supplied by NIDA relative to common categories within the species. This is the first genetic study to include "research grade marijuana" from NIDA. Samples (49) were assigned as Wild Hemp (feral; 6) and Cultivated Hemp (3), NIDA (2), CBD drug type (3), and high THC drug type subdivided into Sativa (11), Hybrid (14), and Indica (10). Ten microsatellites targeting neutral non-coding regions were used. Clustering and genetic distance analyses support a division between hemp and drug-type Cannabis. All hemp samples clustered genetically, but no clear distinction of Sativa, Hybrid, and Indica subcategories within retail marijuana samples was found. Interestingly, the two analyzed "research grade marijuana" samples obtained from NIDA were genetically distinct from most drug-type Cannabis available from retail dispensaries. Although the sample size was small, "research grade marijuana" provided for research is genetically distinct from most retail drug-type Cannabis that patients and patrons are consuming.

The Reliability and Validity of a Clinical Measurement Proposed to Quantify Humeral Torsion.

BACKGROUND: Range of motion (ROM) impairments of the overhead athletes' shoulder are commonly addressed through mobility-based treatments, however, adaptations from humeral torsion (HT) are not amenable to such interventions. A clinical measurement to quantify HT has been proposed, however, the validity is not conclusive. PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study is to determine the intrarater reliability and standard error of measurement (SEM) of the biceps forearm angle (BFA) measurement. The secondary aim of this study is to investigate the convergent validity of the BFA compared to diagnostic ultrasound. STUDY DESIGN: Cross Sectional Reliability and Validity Study. METHODS: HT measurements, utilizing diagnostic ultrasound, were compared to BFA in 74 shoulders (37 subjects) over two sessions. Each measurement was performed three times and a third investigator recorded measures to ensure blinding. Reliability was investigated using utilizing an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 3,k). RESULTS: Intrarater reliability values were 0.923 and 0.849 for diagnostic ultrasound and BFA methods respectively. Convergent validity was r = 0.566. The standard error of measurement for diagnostic ultrasound and BFA was 3° and 5°, respectively. The 95% limits of agreement between the two measurement methods were -24.80° and 19.80° with a mean difference of -2.50° indicating that on average the diagnostic ultrasound measurement was lower than that of the BFA method. CONCLUSION: The BFA is a reliable clinical method for quantifying HT, however, demonstrates moderate to poor convergent validity when compared to diagnostic ultrasound. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.