Sex Differences in the Association Between Cumulative Use of Cannabis and Cognitive Function in Middle Age: The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Cannabis use may impair cognitive function (CF) differently in men and women, due to sex-specific differences in neurobiological mechanisms and environmental risk factors. Objective:Assess sex differences in the association between cumulative exposure to cannabis and cognitive performance in middle age. Methods:We studied participants from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study, including Black and White men and women 18–30 years old at baseline followed over 30 years. Our cross-sectional analysis of CF scores at year 30 was stratified by sex. We computed categories of cumulative exposure in “cannabis-years” (1 cannabis-year=365 days of use) from self-reported use every 2 to 5 years over 30 years. At years 25 and 30, we assessed CF with the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (verbal memory), the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (processing speed), and the Stroop Interference Test (executive function). At year 30, additional measures included Category and Letter Fluency Test (verbal ability) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (global cognition). We computed standardized scores for each cognitive test and applied multivariable adjusted linear regression models for self-reported cumulative cannabis use, excluding participants who used cannabis within 24 h. In a secondary analysis, we examined the association between changes in current cannabis use and changes in CF between years 25 and 30. Results:By year 30, 1,352 men and 1,793 women had measures of CF; 87% (N=1,171) men and 84% (N=1,502) women reported ever cannabis use. Men had a mean cumulative use of 2.57 cannabis-years and women 1.29 cannabis-years. Self-reported cumulative cannabis use was associated with worse verbal memory in men (e.g., −0.49 standardized units [SU] for ≥5 cannabis-years of exposure; 95% CI=−0.76 to −0.23), but not in women (SU=0.02; 95% CI=−0.26 to 0.29). Other measures of CF were not associated with cannabis. Changes in current cannabis use between years 25 and 30 were not associated with CF in men or women. Conclusions:Self-reported cumulative cannabis exposure was associated with worse verbal memory in men but not in women. Researchers should consider stratified analyses by sex when testing the association between cannabis and cognition.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".