Age‐varying effects of cannabis use frequency and disorder on symptoms of psychosis, depression and anxiety in adolescents and adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We tested the age-varying associations of cannabis use (CU) frequency and disorder (CUD) with psychotic, depressive and anxiety symptoms in adolescent and adult samples. Moderating effects of early onset (≤ 15 years) and sex were tested. DESIGN: Time-varying effect models were used to assess the significance of concurrent associations between CU and CUD and symptoms of psychosis, depression and anxiety at each age. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adolescent data (V-HYS; n = 662) were collected from a randomly recruited sample of adolescents in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada during a 10-year period (2003-13). Adult cross-sectional data (NESARC-III; n = 36 309) were collected from a representative sample from the United States (2012-13). MEASUREMENTS: Mental health symptoms were assessed using self-report measures of diagnostic symptoms. CU was based on frequency of past-year use. Past-year CUD was based on DSM-5 criteria. FINDINGS: For youth in the V-HYS, CU was associated with psychotic symptoms following age 22 [b = 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.002, 0.25], with depressive symptoms from ages 16-19 and following age 25 (b = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.003, 0.34), but not with anxiety symptoms. CUD was associated with psychotic symptoms following age 23 (b = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.01, 1.01), depressive symptoms at ages 19-20 and following age 25 (b = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.001, 1.42) and anxiety symptoms ages 26-27 only. For adults in the NESARC-III, CU was associated with mental health symptoms at most ages [e.g. psychotic symptoms; age 18 (b = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.10, 0.33) to age 65 (b = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.16, 0.56)]. CUD was associated with all mental health symptoms across most ages [e.g. depressive symptoms; age 18 (b = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.19, 1.73) to age 61 (b = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.01, 2.21)]. Interactions with sex show stronger associations for females than males in young adulthood [e.g. V-HYS: CUD × sex interaction on psychotic symptoms significant after age 26 (b = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.02, 2.21)]. Findings were not moderated by early-onset CU. CONCLUSIONS: Significant associations between cannabis use (CU) frequency and disorder (CUD) and psychotic and depressive symptoms in late adolescence and young adulthood extend across adulthood, and include anxiety.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".