Duration of abstinence from cannabis is positively associated with verbal learning performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although there is a consensus that cannabis intoxication will have deleterious effects on a wide spectrum of cognitive skills, there is no consensus regarding the duration of time from last use necessary to ameliorate these effects. METHOD: A systematic review and series of meta-analyses were undertaken to assess anticipated gains in verbal learning with longer periods of cannabis abstinence. Studies assessing verbal learning performance in abstinent regular cannabis users and nonusing control participants; studies reporting length of cannabis abstinence at the time of neuropsychological assessment; and studies implementing one of three highly comparable measures of verbal learning and memory were included in the analyses. The included tasks have demonstrated some of the most robust declines associated with cannabis use and are prevalent in the clinical practice of neuropsychology. We assessed associations between cannabis abstinence and verbal learning scores via mixed effects subgroup analyses. RESULTS: = 1,711) met all inclusion criteria. Cannabis users abstinent for 7 days or fewer performed worse than controls on verbal learning tasks, whereas cannabis users abstinent for longer periods showed no average significant difference in verbal learning performance compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: Based on available evidence, some amelioration of verbal learning limitations presumed to result from cannabis appear to resolve between 7 and 28 days of sustained abstinence. However, in the reviewed studies, years of regular use were inversely related to longer periods of abstinence and verbal learning performance, undermining a confident inference that abstinence alone has direct benefits to verbal learning and memory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".