Cannabis Dependence is Associated with Reduced Hippocampal Subregion Volumes Independently of Sex: Findings from an ENIGMA Addiction Working Group Multi-Country Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Males and females who consume cannabis can experience different mental health and cognitive problems. Neuroscientific theories of addiction postulate that dependence is underscored by neuroadaptations, but do not account for the contribution of distinct sexes. Further, there is little evidence for sex differences in the neurobiology of cannabis dependence as most neuroimaging studies have been conducted in largely male samples in which cannabis dependence, as opposed to use, is often not ascertained. Methods: We examined subregional hippocampus and amygdala volumetry in a sample of 206 people recruited from the ENIGMA Addiction Working Group. They included 59 people with cannabis dependence (17 females), 49 cannabis users without cannabis dependence (20 females), and 98 controls (33 females). Results: We found no group-by-sex effect on subregional volumetry. The left hippocampal cornu ammonis subfield 1 (CA1) volumes were lower in dependent cannabis users compared with non-dependent cannabis users ( p <0.001, d =0.32) and with controls ( p =0.022, d =0.18). Further, the left cornu ammonis subfield 3 (CA3) and left dentate gyrus volumes were lower in dependent versus non-dependent cannabis users but not versus controls ( p =0.002, d =0.37, and p =0.002, d =0.31, respectively). All models controlled for age, intelligence quotient (IQ), alcohol and tobacco use, and intracranial volume. Amygdala volumetry was not affected by group or group-by-sex, but was smaller in females than males. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the relationship between cannabis dependence and subregional volumetry was not moderated by sex. Specifically, dependent (rather than non-dependent) cannabis use may be associated with alterations in selected hippocampus subfields high in cannabinoid type 1 (CB1) receptors and implicated in addictive behavior. As these data are cross-sectional, it is plausible that differences predate cannabis dependence onset and contribute to the initiation of cannabis dependence. Longitudinal neuroimaging work is required to examine the time-course of the onset of subregional hippocampal alterations in cannabis dependence, and their progression as cannabis dependence exacerbates or recovers over time.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".