ArticlePloS one2025
Beyond potency: A proposed lexicon for sensory differentiation of Cannabis sativa L. aroma.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aroma is a critical factor in consumer-perceived quality of Cannabis sativa L., yet standardized tools for describing the aromatic diversity of uncombusted Cannabis inflorescence are lacking. This study generated and evaluated a descriptive aroma lexicon for intact Cannabis inflorescence consisting of 25 terms with defined reference standards. A human panel evaluated 91 samples using a Check-All-That-Apply method. Multivariate analyses demonstrated the lexicon's ability to differentiate samples based on orthonasal aroma. Type I and III Cannabis exhibited overlapping sensory profiles, though type I (high THC, low CBD) was more frequently described as skunky, musty, and animalic, whereas type III (low THC, high CBD) had higher frequencies of citrus, fruity, and candy-like aromas. Terpene profiling revealed clear chemical clusters, but terpene profiles alone poorly predicted sensory character. Terpinolene was the only compound consistently associated with sensory descriptors, specifically citrus and chemical. In type III samples, 43 volatile sulfur compounds were detected via gas chromatography with a pulsed flame photometric detector, including dimethyl sulfide, methional, and dimethyl trisulfide while others were tentatively identified or novel. However, neither terpene nor volatile sulfur compound profiles strongly predicted sensory perception. These results emphasize the limitations of chemical composition as a proxy for aroma quality. This work establishes a foundation for future research linking aroma, chemistry, and consumer preferences, and supports the development of quality metrics beyond delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol potency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.