MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386534811 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102199

Association between cannabis use and symptom dimensions in schizophrenia spectrum disorders: an individual participant data meta-analysis on 3053 individuals

2023· article· en· W4386534811 on OpenAlexaff
Mathilde Argote, Guillaume Sescousse, Jérôme Brunelin, Grégoire Baudin, Michael P Schaub, Rachel A. Rabin, Thomas Schnell, Petter Andreas Ringen, Ole A. Andreassen, Jean Addington, Paolo Brambilla, Giuseppe Delvecchio, Andreas Bechdolf, Thomas Wobrock, Daniela Herzig, Christine Möhr, Regina Vila‐Badia, Judith Usall i Rodié, Jasmina Mallet, Valerio Ricci, Giovanni Martinotti, Karolína Knížková, Mabel Rodríguez, Jacob Cookey, Philip G. Tibbo, Freda Scheffler, Laila Asmal, Clemente García‐Rizo, Sílvia Amoretti, Christian G. Huber, Heather Thibeau, Emily Kline, É. Fakra, Renaud Jardri, Mikaïl Nourredine, Benjamin Rolland

Bibliographic record

VenueEClinicalMedicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie UniversityMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryHotchkiss Brain Institute
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsMedicineSchizophrenia spectrumSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Association (psychology)PsychiatryCannabisMeta-analysisClinical psychologyPsychosisPsychotherapistPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The association between cannabis use and positive symptoms in schizophrenia spectrum disorders is well documented, especially via meta-analyses. Yet, findings are inconsistent regarding negative symptoms, while other dimensions such as disorganization, depression, and excitement, have not been investigated. In addition, meta-analyses use aggregated data discarding important confounding variables which is a source of bias. Methods: PubMed, ScienceDirect and PsycINFO were used to search for publications from inception to September 27, 2022. We contacted the authors of relevant studies to extract raw datasets and perform an Individual Participant Data meta-analysis (IPDMA). Inclusion criteria were: psychopathology of individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders assessed by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS); cannabis-users had to either have a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder or use cannabis at least twice a week. The main outcomes were the PANSS subscores extracted via the 3-factor (positive, negative and general) and 5-factor (positive, negative, disorganization, depression, excitement) structures. Preregistration is accessible via Prospero: ID CRD42022329172. Findings: Among the 1149 identified studies, 65 were eligible and 21 datasets were shared, totaling 3677 IPD and 3053 complete cases. The adjusted multivariate analysis revealed that relative to non-use, cannabis use was associated with higher severity of positive dimension (3-factor: Adjusted Mean Difference, aMD = 0.34, 95% Confidence Interval, CI = [0.03; 0.66]; 5-factor: aMD = 0.38, 95% CI = [0.08; 0.63]), lower severity of negative dimension (3-factor: aMD = -0.49, 95% CI [-0.90; -0.09]; 5-factor: aMD = -0.50, 95% CI = [-0.91; -0.08]), higher severity of excitement dimension (aMD = 0.16, 95% CI = [0.03; 0.28]). No association was found between cannabis use and disorganization (aMD = -0.13, 95% CI = [-0.42; 0.17]) or depression (aMD = -0.14, 95% CI = [-0.34; 0.06]). Interpretation: No causal relationship can be inferred from the current results. The findings could be in favor of both a detrimental and beneficial effect of cannabis on positive and negative symptoms, respectively. Longitudinal designs are needed to understand the role of cannabis is this association. The reported effect sizes are small and CIs are wide, the interpretation of findings should be taken with caution. Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant or funding. Primary financial support for authors was provided by Le Vinatier Psychiatric Hospital.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.287
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.146 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEClinicalMedicineSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207