Human Abuse Potential and Cognitive Effects of Taranabant, a Cannabinoid 1 Receptor Inverse Agonist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Taranabant is a cannabinoid 1 receptor inverse agonist that was in development for treatment of obesity. Because of central nervous system effects, the study was performed to assess the abuse potential and cognitive effects of taranabant in recreational polydrug users compared with phentermine, dronabinol, and placebo. METHODS: Stimulant- and cannabis-experienced polydrug users (N = 30) were randomized in a double-blind crossover study to receive taranabant 2, 4, 10, and 20 mg; phentermine 45 and 90 mg; dronabinol 20 mg; and placebo. Subjective and neurocognitive measures were administered for 24 hours, and peak/peak change from baseline effects were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model. RESULTS: Phentermine 45 and 90 mg showed abuse-related subjective effects versus placebo, including drug liking, overall drug liking, and other positive/stimulant effects, whereas dronabinol 20 mg showed abuse-related positive, cannabis-like, and sedative effects. Taranabant was not significantly different from placebo on most of the subjective measures other than negative/dysphoric effects at the highest dose, and its effects were significantly less pronounced relative to phentermine and dronabinol on most measures. Phentermine improved cognitive/motor performance and dronabinol impaired motor/cognitive performance on some measures, whereas taranabant 4 and 20 mg had minor impairment effects on manual tracking. CONCLUSIONS: The phentermine and dronabinol results demonstrate the validity and sensitivity of the study. Taranabant did not consistently show stimulant/cannabis-like effects or abuse potential in recreational polydrug users, indicating that cannabinoid 1 receptor inverse agonists/antagonists are unlikely to be recreationally abused.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".