Evaluation of the Association Between Prenatal Cannabis Use and Risk of Developmental Delay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Conflicting results have arisen regarding the association between prenatal cannabis exposure and risk of parent-reported developmental delay in infancy. In certain instances, this literature has become outdated or failed to adjust for confounding variables. The current study aimed to determine if prenatal cannabis exposure was associated with a greater likelihood of risk of parent-reported developmental delay at 12 months of age in a contemporary cohort, while adjusting for common confounding variables. Method: Participants (n = 10,695) were part of the Pregnancy During the COVID-19 Pandemic (PdP) study. A subset of the sample (n = 3,742) provided a parent-report developmental assessment, the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, Third Edition (ASQ-3), of their infant at 12 months old. Sociodemographic differences between participants who reported cannabis use (CU+ group) and those who did not (CU- group) were analyzed. To address potential heterogeneity between CU+ and CU- groups, propensity score weighting was used. G-computations were performed to analyze the association between outcome variables (gestational age, birth weight, and risk of parent-reported developmental delay) and prenatal cannabis exposure. Weighted linear or quasi-binominal logistic regression models were used, with differences of averages and odds ratios reported. Results: s > .05). Conclusion: Prenatal cannabis exposure was associated with increased odds of delay on the communication domain before adjusting for multiple comparisons. No other domains were significantly associated with increased odds of delay. These findings should not be interpreted as suggesting that consuming cannabis products during pregnancy is safe for infant development. Further, the analysis was performed using data from a longitudinal sample that was not specifically created to address this question, but was leveraged to explore these outcomes. Additional studies that are specifically designed to examine these outcomes are needed. Diversity & Inclusion Statement: We worked to ensure that the study questionnaires were prepared in an inclusive way. We worked to ensure race, ethnic, and/or other types of diversity in the recruitment of human participants. The author list of this paper includes contributors from the location and/or community where the research was conducted who participated in the data collection, design, analysis, and/or interpretation of the work. One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as a member of one or more historically underrepresented sexual and/or gender groups in science.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".