Adolescents Prenatally Exposed to Marijuana: Examination of Facets of Complex Behaviors and Comparisons with the Influence of In Utero Cigarettes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the purposes of this review, the impact of prenatal exposure to marijuana in adolescent offspring is discussed in the context that the effects may be apparent only when the multifaceted nature of complex behaviors is examined and that such exposure can be distinguished from those of prenatal exposure to cigarettes. The data are derived from adolescents participating in an on going longitudinal study for whom prenatal marijuana and cigarette exposure had been ascertained with the low-risk, predominantly middle-class sample that had been assessed since birth. In this report, cognitive functioning and visual perceptual performance in 9- to 12-year-olds and facets of attention in 13- to 16-year-olds are examined. These three areas of behavior all appear to be affected differentially by maternal use of marijuana or cigarettes. Prenatal cigarette exposure was associated with lowered IQ, poorer impulse control, and poorer performance on tests requiring fundamental aspects of visuoperceptual performance. In contrast, prenatal marijuana did not have a negative impact on IQ or on basic visuoperceptual skills. Rather, in utero exposure to marijuana had an impact on the application of these skills in tasks in problem-solving situations requiring visual integration and analytical skills as well as sustained attention. These differential findings are discussed in terms of cigarette exposure having a "bottom-up" impact and marijuana exposure having a "top-down" impact. The latter is also discussed in terms of prenatal marijuana's negative association with aspects of executive function.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".