Cannabidiol does not attenuate acute delta‐9‐tetrahydrocannabinol‐induced attentional bias in healthy volunteers: A randomised, double‐blind, cross‐over study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To test how attentional bias and explicit liking are influenced by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and whether these effects are moderated by cannabidiol (CBD). DESIGN: Double-blind, randomised, within-subjects cross-over study. SETTING: NIHR Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility at King's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS/CASES: Forty-six infrequent cannabis users (cannabis use <1 per week). INTERVENTION(S): Across four sessions, participants inhaled vaporised cannabis containing 10 mg of THC and either 0 mg (0:1 CBD:THC), 10 mg (1:1), 20 mg (2:1) or 30 mg (3:1) of CBD, administered in a randomised order and counter-balanced across participants (a total of 24 order groups). MEASUREMENTS: Participants completed two tasks: (1) Attentional Bias (AB), comparing reaction times toward visual probes presented behind 28 target stimuli (cannabis/food) compared with probes behind corresponding non-target (neutral) stimuli. Participants responding more quickly to probes behind target than non-target stimuli would indicate greater attentional bias to cannabis/food; (2) Picture Rating (PR), where all AB stimuli were rated on a 7-point pleasantness scale, measuring explicit liking. FINDINGS: During the AB task, participants were more biased toward cannabis stimuli in the 0:1 condition compared with baseline (mean difference = 12.2, 95% confidence intervals [CIs] = 1.20-23.3, d = 0.41, P = 0.03). No other significant AB or PR differences were found between cannabis and food stimuli between baseline and 0:1 condition (P > 0.05). No significant CBD effect was found on AB or PR task performance at any dose (P > 0.05). There was additionally no cumulative effect of THC exposure on AB or PR outcomes (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A double-blind, randomised, cross-over study among infrequent cannabis users found that inhaled delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol increased attentional bias toward cannabis in the absence of explicit liking, a marker of liability toward cannabis use disorder. At the concentrations normally found in legal and illegal cannabis, cannabidiol had no influence on this effect.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".