The initiation of cannabis use in adolescence is predicted by sex‐specific psychosocial and neurobiological features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cannabis use initiated during adolescence might precipitate negative consequences in adulthood. Thus, predicting adolescent cannabis use prior to any exposure will inform the aetiology of substance abuse by disentangling predictors from consequences of use. In this prediction study, data were drawn from the IMAGEN sample, a longitudinal study of adolescence. All selected participants (n = 1,581) were cannabis-naïve at age 14. Those reporting any cannabis use (out of six ordinal use levels) by age 16 were included in the outcome group (N = 365, males n = 207). Cannabis-naïve participants at age 14 and 16 were included in the comparison group (N = 1,216, males n = 538). Psychosocial, brain and genetic features were measured at age 14 prior to any exposure. Cross-validated regularized logistic regressions for each use level by sex were used to perform feature selection and obtain prediction error statistics on independent observations. Predictors were probed for sex- and drug-specificity using post-hoc logistic regressions. Models reliably predicted use as indicated by satisfactory prediction error statistics, and contained psychosocial features common to both sexes. However, males and females exhibited distinct brain predictors that failed to predict use in the opposite sex or predict binge drinking in independent samples of same-sex participants. Collapsed across sex, genetic variation on catecholamine and opioid receptors marginally predicted use. Using machine learning techniques applied to a large multimodal dataset, we identified a risk profile containing psychosocial and sex-specific brain prognostic markers, which were likely to precede and influence cannabis initiation.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".