A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Test of the Effects of Cannabidiol on Experiences of Test Anxiety Among College Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Oral administration of cannabidiol (CBD) has shown to yield a variety of therapeutic benefits among humans, particularly regarding symptoms of anxiety. This study tested single oral administration doses of CBD (150, 300, or 600 mg), compared to placebo, for reducing test anxiety (TA) in a researcher-derived experimental analog. Method: Our sample included 32 healthy college students who self-reported moderate-to-severe levels of TA. Participants attended an experimental session, and received a dose of CBD or placebo, in a double-blind procedure. After administration of CBD, participants completed a statistics examination and measures of TA and general anxiety during examination administration. Results: Results indicated no effect of CBD dose on self-reported TA or general anxiety; however, results indicated efficacy of our experimental manipulation for inducing TA in vivo . Discussion: This is the first study to demonstrate that CBD does not reduce experiences of TA, and future work may examine the underlying mechanisms and affective states related to anxiety for which CBD may offer anxiolytic benefits, and for whom.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".