MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414180955 · doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.359

Adolescent cannabis use and young adult healthcare use in a population-based birth cohort linked to healthcare administrative records

2025· article· en· W4414180955 on OpenAlexaffabout
P. Perez Martinez, Marie‐Claude Geoffroy, Caroline E. Temcheff, Sylvana M. Côté, Richard E. Tremblay, Michel Boivin, Massimiliano Orri

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalResearch Unit on Children's Psychosocial MaladjustmentMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogistic regressionMental healthPsychological interventionHealth careConfoundingYoung adultCohortCannabis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Evidence links early adolescent cannabis use (CU) to long-term health risks, but most studies lack comprehensive early-life confounder data and rely on subjective health measures. Objectives To assess the association between adolescent CU trajectories and healthcare use for physical and mental health problems (P&MHP) in young adulthood. Methods Data from the Québec Longitudinal Study of Child Development, a 23-year population-based birth cohort (N = 1,591), were linked to healthcare administrative records (hospitalizations, outpatient, and ER visits). CU trajectories (exposure) were derived from age of onset and frequency data (ages 12-17) using group-based trajectory modeling. Missing data on pre-exposure confounders were multiply imputed. Overlap-weighted logistic regression was used to assess the adjusted associations between these trajectories and healthcare use for P&MHP between ages 18-23. Results Three CU trajectories were identified: non-users, late users, and early users (Figure 1). Early users had a higher risk of healthcare use for any mental disorder (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.17-2.06), common mental disorders (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.19-2.39), substance-related disorders (OR 2.25, 95% 1.24-4.10), and hospitalizations for physical diseases (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.03-2.38) compared to non-users. No significant differences were found between late and non-users. Image 1: Conclusions These findings highlight the need for targeted interventions during adolescence to mitigate long-term health risks. Prevention efforts should prioritize early users, and be focused on integrated social, mental, and physical care. Disclosure of Interest None Declared

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.311 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean PsychiatrySame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207