Bibliographic record
Abstract
The acute effects of marijuana consumption on brain physiology and behaviour are well documented, but the long-term effects of its chronic use are less well known. Chronic marijuana use during adolescence is of increased interest, given that the majority of individuals first use marijuana during this developmental stage , and adolescent marijuana use is thought to increase the susceptibility to abusing other drugs when exposed later in life. It is possible that marijuana use during critical periods in adolescence could lead to increased sensitivity to other drugs of abuse later on. To test this, we chronically administered ∆ 9 -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to male and female Long-Evans (LER) and Wistar (WR) rats directly after puberty onset. Rats matured to postnatal day 90 before being exposed to a conditioned place preference task (CPP). A subthreshold dose of d-amphetamine, found not to induce place preference in drug naïve rats, was used as the unconditioned stimulus. The effect of d-amphetamine on neural activity was inferred by quantifying cfos expression in the nucleus accumbens and dorsal hippocampus following CPP training. Chronic exposure to THC post-puberty had no potentiating effect on a subthreshold dose of d-amphetamine to induce CPP. No differences in cfos expression were observed. These results show that chronic exposure to THC during puberty did not increase sensitivity to d-amphetamine in adult LER and WR rats. This supports the concept that THC may not sensitize the response to all drugs of abuse.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.092 | 0.134 |
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".