Associations of alternative cannabis product use and poly-use with subsequent illicit drug use initiation during adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Specific cannabis products may differentially increase risk of initiating non-cannabis illicit drug use during adolescence. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether ever- and poly-use of smoked, vaporized, edible, concentrate, or blunt cannabis products are associated with subsequent initiation of non-cannabis illicit drug use. METHODS: High school students from Los Angeles completed in-classroom surveys. The analytic sample (N = 2163; 53.9% female; 43.5% Hispanic/Latino; baseline M age = 17.1 years) included students who reported never using illicit drugs at baseline (spring, 11th grade) and provided data at follow-up (fall and spring, 12th grade). Logistic regression models assessed associations between use of smoked, vaporized, edible, concentrate, and blunt cannabis at baseline (yes/no for each product) and any non-cannabis illicit drug use initiation-including cocaine, methamphetamine, psychedelics, ecstasy, heroin, prescription opioids, or benzodiazepines-at follow-up. RESULTS: Among those who never used non-cannabis illicit drugs at baseline, ever cannabis use varied by cannabis product (smoked = 25.8%, edible = 17.5%, vaporized = 8.4%, concentrates = 3.9%, and blunts = 18.2%) and patterns of use (single product use = 8.2% and poly-product use = 21.8%). After adjustment for baseline covariates, odds of illicit drug use at follow-up were largest for baseline ever users of concentrates (aOR [95% CI] = 5.74[3.16-10.43]), followed by vaporized (aOR [95% CI] = 3.11 [2.41-4.01]), edibles (aOR [95% CI] = 3.43 [2.32-5.08]), blunts (aOR [95% CI] = 2.66[1.60-4.41]), and smoked (aOR [95% CI] = 2.57 [1.64-4.02]) cannabis. Ever use of a single product (aOR [95% CI] = 2.34 [1.26-4.34]) or 2 + products (aOR [95% CI] = 3.82 [2.73-5.35]) were also associated with greater odds of illicit drug initiation. CONCLUSIONS: For each of five different cannabis products, cannabis use was associated with greater odds of subsequent illicit drug use initiation, especially for cannabis concentrate and poly-product 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".