Oral cannabidiol did not impair learning and memory in healthy adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effect of oral Cannabidiol (CBD) on interference during learning and memory (L&M) in healthy human volunteers has not been studied. METHOD: A two-arm crossover, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at Colorado State University Pueblo (CSU Pueblo) to evaluate the effects of 246 mg oral CBD on L&M in healthy adults. Among 57 healthy volunteers enrolled, 35 were included in the analyses. For assessment of L&M, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) was used to evaluate verbal baseline cognitive function; RAVLT-R tests (List A and List B recalls, Proactive and Retroactive Interference ratios, and Forgetting Speed ratio) were used to evaluate verbal declarative memory; and total prose recall was used to evaluate verbal logical memory. Linear Mixed Models with Bonferroni Corrections were used to compare L&M results between primary outcomes (CBD vs. placebo) and secondary demographic outcomes, with a two-tailed statistical significance of P < 0.05. RESULTS: CBD administration did not affect any of the dependent variables measured compared to the placebo group. There were no effects of THC, history of CBD use, or sex on CBD's modulation of L&M. However, a highly significant interaction effect between treatment groups (CBD vs. placebo) and age of subjects was observed for the PI ratio (P = 0.008; n = 35). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that administration of oral CBD alone does not significantly impair L&M in healthy adults. However, age might influence CBD related modulation of proactive interference during human L&M. Future research involving a larger group of older adults is needed to confirm this potential effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was approved by the CSU Pueblo IRB, conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06074172).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".