A Pilot Daily Diary Study of Changes in Stress and Cannabis Use Quantity Across the Menstrual Cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Menstrual cycle (MC) phase appears to influence changes in females’ addictive behaviours (e.g., drinking,cigarette smoking). Few studies have examined cannabis use across the MC. We examined phase-specific changes in stress and cannabis use quantity across the MC in daily cannabis users. We hypothesized there would be an increase in self-reported stress and cannabis quantity premenstrually and menstrually versus other MC phases. Data were obtained prospectively, using a 32-day daily diary, from 14 normally- cycling, community-recruited, female cannabis users (Age: M = 29.3 years old, SD = 4.9). Participants completed measures pertaining to their daily stress levels (the General Stress Scale) and the quantity of cannabis used daily. A priori planned comparison t-tests and non-parametric Wilcoxon rank tests revealed MC phase effects on stress levels and cannabis quantity, respectively. In partial support of stress-response dampening (SRD) model and self-medication theory (SMT) predictions, stress levels were higher in the premenstrual versus the ovulatory phase, and a higher quantity of cannabis was used premenstrually versus the follicular and ovulatory phases. Findings suggest stress levels and cannabis use quantity are MC phase-sensitive. Results are consistent with SRD model and SMT predictions, where females learn to increase the quantity of cannabis used premenstrually to dampen their heightened stress response and negative affect. Female cannabis users of reproductive age could be trained to employ alternative strategies to cope with elevated stress during the premenstrual phase to prevent increased cannabis use.
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".