Cocaine and Cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cocaine use disorder is associated with cognitive deficits. However, the literature remains somewhat ambiguous with respect to which distinct cognitive functions are the most impaired in cocaine use disorder and to how duration of abstinence affects cognitive recovery. Here, we performed a meta-analysis to determine the cognitive domains impaired in cocaine abuse/dependence and the duration of abstinence necessary to achieve cognitive recovery. METHODS: A literature search yielded 46 studies that assessed cognitive dysfunction in subjects with cocaine abuse/dependence. Effect-size estimates were calculated using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V2, for the following 11 cognitive domains: attention, executive functions, impulsivity, speed of processing, verbal fluency/language, verbal learning and memory, visual learning and memory, visuospatial abilities, and working memory. Within these 11 domains, effect-size estimates were calculated on the basis of abstinence duration: short- (positive for drugs urine screening), intermediate- (≤12 weeks), and long-term (≥20 weeks) abstinence. RESULTS: Findings revealed moderate impairment across 8 cognitive domains during intermediate abstinence. The most impaired domains were attention, impulsivity, verbal learning/memory, and working memory. For some domains (attention, speed of processing, and verbal learning/memory), impairments were smaller during short-term abstinence than during intermediate abstinence. Finally, small effect-size estimates were found for long-term abstinence. DISCUSSION: These results suggest significant impairment across multiple cognitive domains in cocaine abusers, and that some of these deficits may be partially masked by the residual or acute withdrawal effects of cocaine. Cognitive dysfunctions remain stable during the first months of abstinence and may abate after 5 months of sobriety.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".