Characterizing subjective and objective effects following cannabis use on cognition and driving: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Acute cannabis (THC) use may affect cognition and driving skills. However, it remains uncertain whether this objectively demonstrated alteration is perceived in the same way by consumers. The aim of this review was to examine the influence of acute cannabis (THC) use on objective and subjective measures and explore their concordance in cognition and driving.Methods A systematic review was conducted, including studies evaluating the acute effects of THC on cognitive and driving performance as well as the corresponding subjective perceptions. The analyses focused on the frequency of positive, negative, and non-significant effects for objective and subjective measures in each domain.Results The analyses revealed significant discrepancies between performance outcomes and self-reports. Subjective measures, although fewer in number, tended to report more (particularly negative) effects than objective measures. This pattern was observed in the cognitive and driving domains; however, for driving, the self-reports aligned more closely with the performance results.Conclusion These findings underscore the importance of adopting complementary measurement approaches in cannabis research. They highlight the need for future research to better understand the concordance between performance and metacognitive judgment to inform evidence-based guidelines and interventions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".