The Relationship Between Cannabis Use and Schizophrenia As a Risk Factor or For Its Therapeutic Potential: A Systematic Review of Evidence
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The rising use of cannabis in the medical field has prompted the revival of the global debate about its psychotropic effects, especially when it comes to schizophrenia, a debilitating mental disorder that afflicts approximately 20 million people around the globe. Although Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is commonly considered a risk factor for psychosis, cannabidiol (CBD) has been studied for its potential therapeutic use. This review aims to clarify the central controversy surrounding the question of whether cannabis worsens schizophrenia symptoms by presenting a selective analysis of the available scientific literature. A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed, PubMed Central, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched for peer-reviewed studies published between 2017 and 2025. A total of 112 records were obtained in the first phase of the research process, and after an intense screening process, eight high-quality studies meeting the inclusion criteria were included based on rigorous quality evaluation (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Review 2 or AMSTAR 2, Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles (SANRA)). Data were extracted and systematically synthesized across three analytical domains: THC as the cause of schizophrenia, the influence of THC on the course of symptoms, and the potential therapeutic effects of CBD. The results provided strong evidence that the risk of developing schizophrenia was significantly higher with the use of high-THC-content cannabis, particularly when used by patients with family vulnerability and by those who used cannabis regularly during adolescence. THC was also demonstrated to exacerbate not only positive and negative psychotic symptoms but also cognitive disturbances in subjects with established schizophrenia. Conversely, there was evidence for the antipsychotic and neuroprotective properties of CBD and its therapeutic potential. However, clinical evidence for CBD was still limited; most studies were small, and few had long-term follow-up. This review emphasizes the importance of distinguishing the components of cannabis in psychiatric discussions. Although THC has potent schizophrenia liability, CBD is still a novel but promising candidate for treatment. Large controlled clinical trials need to be a priority for future research to determine the therapeutic and mechanistic limits of cannabis in mental health. These implications are very important for the clinical arena, public health policy, and research agenda on the topic of cannabis use and schizophrenia treatment.
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 | 0,011 | 0,046 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,014 | 0,013 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
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 ».