Association of cannabis use with neurocognition in adolescents with bipolar disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Bipolar disorder (BD) and cannabis use are each associated with neurocognitive deficits in adolescents. However, little is known regarding the association of neurocognition with cannabis use among adolescents with BD. Therefore, we examined this topic in a sample of adolescents with BD and healthy control (HC) adolescents. Methods: Participants included 121 adolescents ( n = 32 with BD and lifetime cannabis use (BD CB+ ), n = 31 with BD and no lifetime cannabis use (BD CB− ), n = 58 HC with no lifetime cannabis use), aged 14–20 years. Five neurocognitive subtests of the computerized CANTAB battery were assessed. Groups were compared using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) covarying for age, sex, and intelligence quotient. Results: The three groups differed significantly on tests of visuospatial working memory ( F = 4.41, p = 0.014, [Formula: see text]) and sustained attention ( F = 5.15, p = 0.007, [Formula: see text]). Post hoc analyses revealed working memory scores were significantly worse in BD CB+ versus HC ( p = 0.04, d = 0.59), and sustained attention was significantly worse in BD CB− versus HC ( p = 0.006, d = 0.70). Conclusion: These preliminary findings suggest that cannabis use among adolescents with BD is associated with working memory deficits. Future studies in larger samples are warranted to evaluate causation versus predisposition to cannabis use, and to evaluate duration, quantity, and potency of cannabis on neurocognition among adolescents with BD.
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".