Predictors of perceived symptom change with acute cannabis use for mental health conditions in a naturalistic sample: A machine learning approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite limited clinical evidence of its efficacy, cannabis use has been commonly reported for the management of various mental health concerns in naturalistic field studies. The aim of the current study was to use machine learning methods to investigate predictors of perceived symptom change across various mental health symptoms with acute cannabis use in a large naturalistic sample. METHODS: Data from 68,819 unique observations of cannabis use from 1307 individuals using cannabis to manage mental health symptoms were analyzed. Data were extracted from Strainprint®, a mobile app that allows users to monitor their cannabis use for therapeutic purposes. Machine learning models were employed to predict self-perceived symptom change after cannabis use, and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) value plots were used to assess feature importance of individual predictors in the model. Interaction effects of symptom severity pre-scores of anxiety, depression, insomnia, and gender were also examined. RESULTS: The factors that were most strongly associated with perceived symptom change following acute cannabis use were pre-symptom severity, age, gender, and the ratio of CBD to THC. Further examination on the impact of baseline severity for the most commonly reported symptoms revealed distinct responses, with cannabis being reported to more likely benefit individuals with lower pre-symptom severity for depression, and higher pre-symptom severity for insomnia. Responses to cannabis use also differed between genders. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study highlight the importance of several factors in predicting perceived symptom change with acute cannabis use for mental health symptom management. Mental health profiles and baseline symptom severity may play a large role in perceived responses to cannabis. Distinct response patterns were also noted across commonly reported mental health symptoms, emphasizing the need for placebo-controlled cannabis trials for specific user profiles.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".