Examining bidirectional associations between cannabis use and internalizing symptoms among high-risk emerging adults: A prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The co-occurrence of cannabis use and internalizing problems, such as depression and anxiety, during emerging adulthood (18-25 years) is well documented, but the directionality is unclear. This study investigates the bidirectional longitudinal relationships between cannabis use (frequency and consequences) and internalizing problems (depressive and anxiety symptoms) among high-risk emerging adults. Methods: Data came from 7 assessment waves collected over a 2-year period among 900 (56% female) high-risk emerging adults participating in two longitudinal cohorts (Ontario, Canada; Tennessee, USA). Latent curve models with structured residuals were used to explore bidirectional between- and within-person relationships between cannabis-related variables and internalizing problems. Results: At baseline, higher cannabis use frequency and consequences were both associated with higher internalizing symptoms. In between-person models, both cannabis-related factors (frequency and consequences) and internalizing symptoms (depressive and anxiety symptoms) decreased across emerging adulthood. In within-person models, bidirectional relationships were observed (partially supporting both symptom-driven and substance-induced pathways), but cannabis consequences, rather than frequency, were most consistently related to subsequently higher internalizing problems (particularly depressive symptoms). These bidirectional relationships were more pronounced among females and those surpassing clinical thresholds for internalizing problems at baseline. Conclusions: This study found evidence of bidirectional relationships between cannabis involvement and internalizing problems across emerging adulthood, although the prevailing direction was from negative cannabis consequences to increases in internalizing. These findings highlight the importance of cannabis intervention in emerging adults, both to reduce consequences and prevent internalizing symptoms, especially targeting females and those with clinically elevated internalizing problems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".