S96. EXAMINING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CURRENT CANNABIS CONSUMPTION AND COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING OF FIRST-EPISODE PSYCHOSIS PATIENTS: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Although growing research has observed a positive association between cannabis consumption and cognition in patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP), such better performance has not always been found across all cognitive domains. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether frequency of use is related to cognitive functioning in a dose-dependent manner. Understanding these associations may help to better manage cognitive impairments highly prevalent in FEP patients and inform prognosis. The aim of this study was to compare current cannabis use and cognitive functioning of FEP patients in a naturalistic setting. We hypothesized that FEP patients with current cannabis consumption (for the past 6 months or more) would present with higher cognitive performance scores compared to patients with no current consumption. Methods This cross-sectional, retrospective study included 192 current cannabis-using and 137 non-using patients at time of admission to a specialized early intervention clinic for FEP at the Douglas Mental Health University Institute in Montreal, Canada. Participants completed clinical and cognitive test batteries, including assessments of verbal memory, executive functioning, processing speed, working memory, attention, and visual memory. Cognitive domains were assessed using Weschler Memory Scale III and CogState Battery. Current cannabis consumption and frequency of use were assessed using the Chemical Use, Abuse, and Dependence Scale (CUAD). In addition to comparing status of cannabis consumption, four groups of FEP patients were analyzed according to frequency of use: 1) non-users (NU, n = 102), 2) light-users (LU, n = 21), 3) moderate-users (MU, n = 35), and heavy-users (HU, n = 64). Separate MANCOVA analyses were conducted to test the main effects of 1) current cannabis consumption (use vs non-use) and 2) frequency of cannabis use (none, light-use, moderate use, heavy use) on six cognitive domain performance scores. Age, sex, cigarette use, and cognitive battery type were entered as covariates, as they are known to influence neurocognitive scores. Results Between-group comparisons on demographic variables revealed statistically significant differences in age (with NU being older than LU) and cigarette use (with the HU having higher % of use). Contrary to our hypothesis, no significant differences were found between current users and non-users, even while controlling for potential confounds, F(6,143) =1.61, p=.149. When splitting the user group based on frequency of use, no significant differences were observed on cognitive performance, F(18,399.3) =.903, p=.575. Discussion Our findings reveal no significant differences between current cannabis consumption and cognitive functioning in a large representative sample of FEP patients at time of entry into a treatment clinic. This is consistent with previous studies that showed absence of differences in neurocognitive functioning between FEP cannabis users and non-users (e.g., Bugra et al., 2013). Other potential confounds such as the age of cannabis use onset, history of use and the different types of cannabis preparations may influence the present results and necessitate measurement in future investigations. The age differences observed may suggest that those who develop psychosis at a later age could be less predisposed to use cannabis. Alternatively, it is possible that light-use of cannabis somehow triggers the onset of psychosis, as is suggested by the literature that cannabis use is a component cause of developing psychosis.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».