Interaction of sex and cannabis in adult <i>in vivo</i> brain imaging studies: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cannabis has been shown to cause structural and functional neurocognitive changes in heavy users. Cannabis use initiation aligns with brain development trajectories; therefore, it is imperative that the potential neurological implications of cannabis use are understood. Males and females reach neurodevelopmental milestones at different rates making it necessary to consider biological sex in all cannabis and brain-based research. Through use of a systamatic review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, we aimed to understand the interaction between biological sex and cannabis use on brain-based markers. In total, 18 articles containing a sex-based analysis of cannabis users were identified. While the majority of studies ( n = 11) reported no sex by cannabis use interactions on brain-based markers, those that reported findings ( n = 8) suggest females may be more susceptible to cannabis’ neurotoxic effects. Unfortunately, a large portion of the literature was excluded due to no sex-based analysis. In addition, studies that reported no sex differences often contained a reduced number of females which may result in some studies being underpowered for sex-based analyses, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Suggestions to improve cannabis and sex-based reseach are proposed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".