Sex and dependence related neuroanatomical differences in regular cannabis users: findings from the ENIGMA Addiction Working Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Males and females show different patterns of cannabis use and related psychosocial outcomes. However, the neuroanatomical substrates underlying such differences are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to map sex differences in the neurobiology (as indexed by brain volumes) of dependent and recreational cannabis use. We compared the volume of a priori regions of interest (i.e., amygdala, hippocampus, nucleus accumbens, insula, orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), anterior cingulate cortex and cerebellum) between 129 regular cannabis users (of whom 70 were recreational users and 59 cannabis dependent) and 114 controls recruited from the ENIGMA Addiction Working Group, accounting for intracranial volume, age, IQ, and alcohol and tobacco use. Dependent cannabis users, particularly females, had (marginally significant) smaller volumes of the lateral OFC and cerebellar white matter than recreational users and controls. In dependent (but not recreational) cannabis users, there was a significant association between female sex and smaller volumes of the cerebellar white matter and OFC. Volume of the OFC was also predicted by monthly standard drinks. No significant effects emerged the other brain regions of interest. Our findings warrant future multimodal studies that examine if sex and cannabis dependence are specific key drivers of neurobiological alterations in cannabis users. This, in turn, could help to identify neural pathways specifically involved in vulnerable cannabis users (e.g., females with cannabis dependence) and inform individually tailored neurobiological targets for treatment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".