Cannabis use and resting state functional connectivity in adolescent bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescents with bipolar disorder have high rates of cannabis use, and cannabis use is associated with increased symptom severity and treatment resistance in bipolar disorder. Studies have identified anomalous resting-state functional connectivity among reward networks in bipolar disorder and cannabis use independently, but have yet to examine their convergence. METHODS: Participants included 134 adolescents, aged 13 to 20 years: 40 with bipolar disorder and lifetime cannabis use, 31 with bipolar disorder and no history of cannabis use, and 63 healthy controls without lifetime cannabis use. We used a seed-to-voxel analysis to assess the restingstate functional connectivity of the amygdala, the nucleus accumbens and the orbitofrontal cortex, regions implicated in bipolar disorder and cannabis use. We used a generalized linear model to explore bivariate correlations for each seed, controlling for age and sex. RESULTS: We found 3 significant clusters. Resting-state functional connectivity between the left nucleus accumbens seed and the left superior parietal lobe was negative in adolescents with bipolar disorder and no history of cannabis use, and positive in healthy controls. Resting-state functional connectivity between the right orbitofrontal cortex seed and the right lateral occipital cortex was positive in adolescents with bipolar disorder and lifetime cannabis use, and negative in healthy controls and adolescents with bipolar disorder and no history of cannabis use. Resting-state functional connectivity between the right orbitofrontal cortex seed and right occipital pole was positive in adolescents with bipolar disorder and lifetime cannabis use, and negative in adolescents with bipolar disorder and no history of cannabis use. LIMITATIONS: The study did not include a cannabis-using control group. CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence of cannabis-related differences in functional reward circuits in adolescents with bipolar disorder. Further studies are necessary to evaluate whether the present findings reflect consequences of or predisposition to 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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".