Age-dependent association of cannabis use with risk of psychotic disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic research suggests that youth cannabis use is associated with psychotic disorders. However, current evidence is based heavily on 20th-century data when cannabis was substantially less potent than today. METHODS: = 11 363). The primary outcome was days to first hospitalization, ED visit, or outpatient visit related to a psychotic disorder according to validated diagnostic codes. Due to non-proportional hazards, we estimated age-specific hazard ratios during adolescence (12-19 years) and young adulthood (20-33 years). Sensitivity analyses explored alternative model conditions including restricting the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits to increase specificity. RESULTS: Compared to no cannabis use, cannabis use was significantly associated with psychotic disorders during adolescence (aHR = 11.2; 95% CI 4.6-27.3), but not during young adulthood (aHR = 1.3; 95% CI 0.6-2.6). When we restricted the outcome to hospitalizations and ED visits only, the strength of association increased markedly during adolescence (aHR = 26.7; 95% CI 7.7-92.8) but did not change meaningfully during young adulthood (aHR = 1.8; 95% CI 0.6-5.4). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new evidence of a strong but age-dependent association between cannabis use and risk of psychotic disorder, consistent with the neurodevelopmental theory that adolescence is a vulnerable time to use cannabis. The strength of association during adolescence was notably greater than in previous studies, possibly reflecting the recent rise in cannabis potency.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".