MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396230704 · doi:10.1089/can.2023.0246

Endocannabinoids and Stress-Related Neurospsychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Basal Concentrations and Response to Acute Psychosocial Stress

2024· review· en· W4396230704 on OpenAlexafffund
Leah C. Gowatch, Julia M. Evanski, Samantha Ely, Clara G. Zundel, Amanpreet Bhogal, Carmen Carpenter, MacKenna Shampine, Emilie O’Mara, Raegan Mazurka, Jeanne Barcelona, Leah M. Mayo, Hilary A. Marusak

Bibliographic record

VenueCannabis and Cannabinoid Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute of Mental HealthUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentUniversität UlmCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of California, IrvineQueensland University of TechnologyUniversity of Sussex
KeywordsEndocannabinoid systemMeta-analysisFight-or-flight responsePsychosocialBasal (medicine)Stress (linguistics)PsychologyClinical psychologyMedicineNeuroscienceInternal medicinePsychiatryBiologyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Dysregulation of the endocannabinoid (eCB) system is implicated in various stress-related neuropsychiatric disorders (SRDs), including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, our objectives were to characterize circulating anandamide (AEA) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG) concentrations at rest and in response to acute laboratory-based psychosocial stress in individuals with SRDs and without (controls). Our primary aims were to assess the effects of acute psychosocial stress on eCB concentrations in controls (Aim 1), compare baseline (prestress) eCB concentrations between individuals with SRDs and controls (Aim 2), and explore differential eCB responses to acute psychosocial stress in individuals with SRDs compared with controls (Aim 3). Methods: On June 8, 2023, a comprehensive review of the MEDLINE (PubMed) database was conducted to identify original articles meeting inclusion criteria. A total of 1072, 1341, and 400 articles were screened for inclusion in Aims 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Results: Aim 1, comprised of seven studies in controls, revealed that most studies reported stress-related increases in AEA (86%, with 43% reporting statistical significance) and 2-AG (83%, though none were statistically significant except for one study in saliva). However, meta-analyses did not support these patterns ( p' s>0.05). Aim 2, with 20 studies, revealed that most studies reported higher baseline concentrations of both AEA (63%, with 16% reporting statistical significance) and 2-AG (60%, with 10% reporting statistical significance) in individuals with SRDs compared with controls. Meta-analyses confirmed these findings ( p' s<0.05). Aim 3, which included three studies, had only one study that reported statistically different stress-related changes in 2-AG (but not AEA) between individuals with PTSD (decrease) and controls (increase), which was supported by the meta-analysis ( p <0.001). Meta-analyses showed heterogeneity across studies and aims ( I 2 =14–97%). Conclusion: Despite substantial heterogeneity in study characteristics, samples, and methodologies, consistent patterns emerged, including elevated baseline AEA and 2-AG in individuals with SRDs compared with controls, as well as smaller stress-related increases in 2-AG in individuals with SRDs compared with controls. To consider eCBs as reliable biomarkers and potential intervention targets for SRDs, standardized research approaches are needed to clarify the complex relationships between eCBs, SRDs, and psychosocial stress.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.363 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations34
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207