Emotion regulation in emerging adults with major depressive disorder and frequent cannabis use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In people with mental health issues, approximately 20% have co-occurring substance use, often involving cannabis. Although emotion regulation can be affected both by major depressive disorder (MDD) and by cannabis use, the relationship among all three factors is unknown. In this study, we used fMRI to evaluate the effect that cannabis use and MDD have on brain activation during an emotion regulation task. Differences were assessed in 74 emerging adults aged 16-23 with and without MDD who either used or did not use cannabis. Severity of depressive symptoms, emotion regulation style, and age of cannabis use onset were also measured. Both MDD and cannabis use interacted with the emotion regulation task in the left temporal lobe, however the location of the interaction differed for each factor. Specifically, MDD showed an interaction with emotion regulation in the middle temporal gyrus, whereas cannabis use showed an interaction in the superior temporal gyrus. Emotion regulation style predicted activity in the right superior frontal gyrus, however, this did not interact with MDD or cannabis use. Severity of depressive symptoms interacted with the emotion regulation task in the left middle temporal gyrus. The results highlight the influence of cannabis use and MDD on emotion regulation processing, suggesting that both may have a broader impact on the brain than previously thought.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".