MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Brain Function Outcomes of Recent and Lifetime Cannabis Use

2025· article· en· W4406903434 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua L. Gowin, Jarrod M. Ellingson, Hollis C. Karoly, Peter Manza, J. Megan Ross, Matthew E. Sloan, Jody Tanabe, Nora D. Volkow

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsCannabisFunctional magnetic resonance imagingPsychologyPsychiatryCannabis DependenceYoung adultBrain Structure and FunctionMedicineClinical psychologyNeuroimagingDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Cannabis use has increased globally, but its effects on brain function are not fully known, highlighting the need to better determine recent and long-term brain activation outcomes of cannabis use. Objective: To examine the association of lifetime history of heavy cannabis use and recent cannabis use with brain activation across a range of brain functions in a large sample of young adults in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data (2017 release) from the Human Connectome Project (collected between August 2012 and 2015). Young adults (aged 22-36 years) with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), urine toxicology, and cannabis use data were included in the analysis. Data were analyzed from January 31 to July 30, 2024. Exposures: History of heavy cannabis use was assessed using the Semi-Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcoholism, with variables for lifetime history and diagnosis of cannabis dependence. Individuals were grouped as heavy lifetime cannabis users if they had greater than 1000 uses, as moderate users if they had 10 to 999 uses, and as nonusers if they had fewer than 10 uses. Participants provided urine samples on the day of scanning to assess recent use. Diagnosis of cannabis dependence (per Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria) was also included. Main Outcomes and Measures: Brain activation was assessed during each of the 7 tasks administered during the functional MRI session (working memory, reward, emotion, language, motor, relational assessment, and theory of mind). Mean activation from regions associated with the primary contrast for each task was used. The primary analysis was a linear mixed-effects regression model (one model per task) examining the association of lifetime cannabis and recent cannabis use on the mean brain activation value. Results: The sample comprised 1003 adults (mean [SD] age, 28.7 [3.7] years; 470 men [46.9%] and 533 women [53.1%]). A total of 63 participants were Asian (6.3%), 137 were Black (13.7%), and 762 were White (76.0%). For lifetime history criteria, 88 participants (8.8%) were classified as heavy cannabis users, 179 (17.8%) as moderate users, and 736 (73.4%) as nonusers. Heavy lifetime use (Cohen d = -0.28 [95% CI, -0.50 to -0.06]; false discovery rate corrected P = .02) was associated with lower activation on the working memory task. Regions associated with a history of heavy use included the anterior insula, medial prefrontal cortex, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Recent cannabis use was associated with poorer performance and lower brain activation in the working memory and motor tasks, but the associations between recent use and brain activation did not survive false discovery rate correction. No other tasks were associated with lifetime history of heavy use, recent use, or dependence diagnosis. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of young adults, lifetime history of heavy cannabis use was associated with lower brain activation during a working memory task. These findings identify negative outcomes associated with heavy lifetime cannabis use and working memory in healthy young adults that may be long lasting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score0.817

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations41
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207