Cannabis use and effect of cannabis abstinence on cognitive functioning in young people — an observational case-control follow-up study from rehabilitation centre in Andhra Pradesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit substance globally, in India particularly. In recent times, younger people started abusing cannabis, resulting in academic decline and psychological disorders. Research from developed countries had shown that abstinence from cannabis reverses cognitive decline in the young population to a certain extent. Studies on this topic have been very few in India. We intended to assess the effects of cannabis use and abstinence from cannabis on the cognitive functioning of young adults. The study was an observational study including 50 consecutive young male patients, who got admitted to our rehabilitation centre with cannabis use disorder (group A). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test was used to assess the baseline cognitive functioning of these patients initially after 1 week of abstinence and compared with 50 graduate students with no history of cannabis use (group B). The MoCA test was re-administered to group A subjects after 3 months of strict abstinence from cannabis use. Results There was a statistically significant difference between the baseline MoCA score of cannabis users and the controls (P < 0.001). Both the duration (r = −0.296, P = 0.036) and the quantity (r= −0.491, P < 0.001) of cannabis use had a negative correlation with the MoCA score. When the MoCA test was re-administered after 3 months of abstinence, we found a statistically significant improvement in cognitive functioning in cannabis users (P < 0.001), but the mean score was still less than the mean score of the control group (24.08 ± 2.66 vs 28.62 ± 0.85, P < 0.001) showing only partial improvement. Conclusion This study showed that cognitive deficits were seen in cannabis users as compared to nonusers. It also had shown that abstinence from cannabis had partially reversed the impairment, but still some deficits were remaining. There is an urgent need for primary prevention strategies at community level to decrease the prevalence of 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".