MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409413368 · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2025.0530

Risk of Dementia in Individuals With Emergency Department Visits or Hospitalizations Due to Cannabis

2025· article· en· W4409413368 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel T. Myran, Michael Pugliese, Lyndsay D. Harrison, Nathan M. Stall, Colleen Webber

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Neurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkOttawa HospitalBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCannabisMedicineDementiaEmergency departmentHazard ratioCohortAcute careCohort studyPopulationRetrospective cohort studyPediatricsPsychiatryHealth careEmergency medicineDiseaseInternal medicineEnvironmental healthConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Cannabis use is associated with short-term memory impairment and long-term changes in brain structure; however, little is known about whether disordered cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of a dementia diagnosis. Objective: To investigate the association between emergency department visits or hospitalizations (acute care encounters) due to cannabis and future dementia diagnosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: Population-based, retrospective, matched cohort study using health administrative data from Ontario, Canada, between 2008 and 2021 (with follow-up until 2022) including all individuals aged 45 to 105 years living in Ontario who were eligible and did not have a diagnosis of dementia at cohort entry (2 620 083 individuals excluded). Exposure: Individuals with incident acute care due to cannabis use, defined using International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision coding. Main Outcomes and Measures: We used cause-specific adjusted hazard models to compare new diagnoses of dementia (from a validated algorithm) between individuals with acute care due to cannabis use with (1) individuals with all-cause acute care (excluding cannabis), (2) the general population, and (3) individuals with acute care due to alcohol use. Results: The study included 6 086 794 individuals, of whom 16 275 (0.3%) had incident acute care due to cannabis use (mean age, 55.2 [SD, 8.3] years; 60.3% male). Annual rates of incident acute care due to cannabis use increased 5.0-fold in individuals aged 45 to 64 years (from 10.16 to 50.65 per 100 000) and 26.7-fold in individuals aged 65 years or older (from 0.65 to 16.99 per 100 000) between 2008 and 2021. Individuals with incident acute care due to cannabis use were at a 1.5-fold and 3.9-fold increased risk of dementia diagnosis within 5 years relative to individuals with all-cause acute care and the general population of the same age and sex, respectively (absolute rates of dementia diagnosis: 5.0% for cannabis-related acute care, 3.6% for all-cause acute care, and 1.3% in the general population). After adjustment for sociodemographics and chronic health conditions, individuals with acute care due to cannabis use remained at elevated risk relative to those with all-cause acute care (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09-1.39) and the general population (aHR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.38-2.15). Individuals with acute care due to cannabis use were at lower risk than those with acute care due to alcohol use (aHR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62-0.76). Conclusions and Relevance: Individuals with cannabis use severe enough to require hospital-based care were at increased risk of a new dementia diagnosis compared with those with all-cause hospital-based care or the general population. These findings have important implications considering increasing cannabis use among older adults.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA NeurologySame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207