MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6907894546 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.6054911.v1

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) Task Force Report: A Systematic Review and Recommendations of Cannabis use in Bipolar Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder

2022· other· en· W6907894546 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBipolar disorderCannabisMajor depressive disorderMoodAnxietyCannabis DependencePrevalence of mental disordersMood disorders

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundGiven the increasing acceptability and legalization of cannabis in some jurisdictions, clinicians need to improve their understanding of the effect of cannabis use on mood disorders.ObjectiveThe purpose of this task force report is to examine the association between cannabis use and incidence, presentation, course and treatment of bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, and the treatment of comorbid cannabis use disorder.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, searching PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to October 2020 focusing on cannabis use and bipolar disorder or major depressive disorder, and treatment of comorbid cannabis use disorder. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and clinical considerations were integrated to generate Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments recommendations.ResultsOf 12,691 publications, 56 met the criteria: 23 on bipolar disorder, 21 on major depressive disorder, 11 on both diagnoses and 1 on treatment of comorbid cannabis use disorder and major depressive disorder. Of 2,479,640 participants, 12,502 were comparison participants, 73,891 had bipolar disorder and 408,223 major depressive disorder without cannabis use. Of those with cannabis use, 2,761 had bipolar disorder and 5,044 major depressive disorder. The lifetime prevalence of cannabis use was 52%–71% and 6%–50% in bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, respectively. Cannabis use was associated with worsening course and symptoms of both mood disorders, with more consistent associations in bipolar disorder than major depressive disorder: increased severity of depressive, manic and psychotic symptoms in bipolar disorder and depressive symptoms in major depressive disorder. Cannabis use was associated with increased suicidality and decreased functioning in both bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder. Treatment of comorbid cannabis use disorder and major depressive disorder did not show significant results.ConclusionThe data indicate that cannabis use is associated with worsened course and functioning of bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder. Future studies should include more accurate determinations of type, amount and frequency of cannabis use and select comparison groups which allow to control for underlying common factors.

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)0.084
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.197
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0840.197
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.018
Bibliometrics0.0310.020
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0090.005
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designSystematic review
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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207