MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406404525 · doi:10.1177/07067437241290187

Cannabis Use Cessation and the Risk of Psychotic Disorders: A Case–Control Analysis from the First Episode Case–Control EU-GEI WP2 Study: L’arrêt de l’utilisation du cannabis et le risque de troubles psychotiques: Une analyse cas-témoins tirée de l’étude cas-témoins EU-GEI WP2 centrée sur les premiers épisodes psychotiques

2025· article· en· W4406404525 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bea Duric, Edoardo Spinazzola, Giulia Trotta, Edward Chesney, Zhikun Li, Diego Quattrone, Giada Tripoli, Charlotte Gayer‐Anderson, Victoria Rodríguez, Laura Ferraro, Caterina La Cascia, Ilaria Tarricone, Andreı̈ Szöke, Celso Arango, Julio Bobes, Miquel Bernardo, Cristina Marta Del‐Ben, Paulo Rossi Menezes, Jean-Paul Selten, Bart P. F. Rutten, Lieuwe de Haan, Simona A. Stilo, Franck Schürhoff, Baptiste Pignon, Tom P. Freeman, Evangelos Vassos, Robin Murray, Isabelle Austin-Zimmerman, Marta Di Forti

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthMedical Research CouncilFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloKing's College LondonLeverhulme TrustNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity College LondonWellcome Trust
KeywordsCannabisPsychiatryMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives To establish whether the risk of psychotic disorders in cannabis users changes with time following cannabis cessation using data from the European Network of National Networks studying Gene–Environment Interactions in Schizophrenia (EU-GEI) case–control study. Methods The EU-GEI case–control study collected data from first episode psychosis patients and population controls across sites in Europe and Brazil between May 2010 and April 2015. Adjusted logistic regressions were applied to examine whether the odd of psychosis case status changed: (1) with time following cannabis cessation and (2) across different cannabis use groups. Results Psychosis risk declined following cessation of cannabis use (β = −0.002; 95% CI −0.004 to 0.000; P = 0.067). When accounting for duration of use, this effect remained (β = −0.003; 95% CI −0.005 to −0.001; P = 0.013). However, in models adjusting for frequency and potency of use the result was not significant. Analysis of different cannabis use groups indicated that ex-users who stopped 1 to 4 weeks previously had the highest risk for psychotic disorder compared to never users (OR = 6.89; 95% CI 3.91–12.14; P < 0.001); risk declined for those who stopped 5 to 12 weeks previously (OR = 2.70; 95% CI 1.73–4.21; P < 0.001) and 13 to 36 weeks previously (OR = 1.53; 95% CI 1.00–2.33; P = 0.050). Ex-users who stopped 37 to 96 weeks (OR = 1.01; 95% CI 0.66–1.57; P = 0.949), 97 to 180 weeks (OR = 0.73; 95% CI 0.45–1.19; P = 0.204), and 181 weeks previously or more (OR = 1.18; 95% CI 0.76–1.83; P = 0.456) had similar psychosis risk to those who had never-used cannabis. Conclusion Risk of psychotic disorder appears to decline with time following cannabis cessation, receding to that of those who have never used cannabis after 37 weeks or more of abstinence. Although, preliminary results suggest that frequent users of high potency types of cannabis might maintain an elevated risk compared to never users even when abstaining for longer than 181 weeks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.262 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research→French-language works237,207→