Evidence on the acute and residual neurocognitive effects of cannabis use in adolescents and adults: a systematic meta‐review of meta‐analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cannabis is among the most consumed psychoactive substances world-wide. Considering changing policy trends regarding the substance, it is crucial to understand more clearly its potential acute and residual adverse effects from a public health viewpoint. Cognitive function is one of the targeted areas with conflicting findings. This meta-review measured the magnitude of acute and residual effects of cannabis on cognition in adolescents and adults provided by meta-analyses and evaluated quality of evidence. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Meta-analyses were included if they quantitatively examined the performances of users from the general population on cognitive tasks. RESULTS: The search retrieved 10 eligible meta-analyses (71 effects sizes, n = 43 761) with evidence ranging from low to moderate quality, which were categorized into domains of cognitive functions: executive functions (k = 7), learning and memory (k = 5), attention (k = 4), processing speed (k = 5), perceptual motor function (k = 2) and language (k = 2). Verbal learning and memory displayed the most robust evidence and were most impaired by acute cannabis intoxication that persisted after intoxication passed. Small-to-moderate acute and residual adverse effects were reported for executive functioning. Cannabis use led to small deficits in inhibitory processes and flexibility, whereas small-to-moderate deficits were reported for working memory and decision-making. Evidence regarding processing speed and attention has shown that cannabis administration induced small-to-moderate adverse effects and residual neurocognitive deficits were observed in heavy cannabis-using youths. Results showed no significant difference between cannabis users and non-users on language, and small-to-moderate effects for simple motor skills. CONCLUSION: Meta-analytical data on the acute effects of cannabis use on neurocognitive function have shown that cannabis intoxication leads to small to moderate deficits in several cognitive domains. These acute impairments accord with documented residual effects, suggesting that the detrimental effects of cannabis persist beyond acute intake.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".