MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409922345 · doi:10.26685/urncst.765

Chronic Cannabis Use Impacts Mood and Anxiety Levels in Young Adults Compared to Nonconsumers: A Literature Review

2025· review· en· W4409922345 on OpenAlexaff
Camille Kahwaji

Bibliographic record

VenueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) Journal · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoodAnxietyCannabisClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rising prevalence of cannabis use among young adults, fueled by legalization and changing social attitudes, raises concerns about its impact on mood and anxiety levels. This article explores the relationship between regular cannabis consumption and mental health outcomes, focusing on individuals aged 15 to 25. We examine the neurodevelopmental changes occurring during young adulthood, highlighting the potential risks associated with cannabis use, particularly in relation to the endocannabinoid system. Direct effects of cannabis, including heightened symptoms of anxiety and depression among heavy users, are discussed alongside the implications of tolerance and the seemingly contrasting effects of THC and CBD. Indirect effects, such as neurocognitive deficits and the influence of socio-economic factors, are also considered. The review emphasizes the need for a nuanced understanding of how both individual and environmental factors contribute to the varying impacts of cannabis on mental health. Ultimately, while regular cannabis use may exacerbate mood and anxiety disturbances in some individuals, others may experience reduced anxiety over time. Future research should focus on the interplay of these factors to inform public health initiatives and mental health interventions for young 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.395 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) JournalSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207