A six-hour time series of the acute effects of ingested cannabis intoxication on a battery of cognitive tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As ≥33% of Canadian adults used cannabis last year, characterizing the effects of acute cannabis intoxication on cognitive function is imperative. The effects of inhaled cannabis intoxication on several cognitive tasks are well known; however, ≥50% of cannabis users consumed ingestible cannabis products (i.e., ‘edibles’) in 2023, for which the cognitive effects are poorly understood. Edible intoxication likely presents differently from inhalation due to different absorption and metabolic routes for the psychoactive component of cannabis, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Thus, the purpose of our study was to characterize the acute effects of ingested cannabis intoxication on cognitive function. Fourteen participants (8 female; 29.7±7.3years), who had consumed cannabis before, but not more than once per week in the six months prior to participation, performed a battery of cognitive tasks before (baseline; BL) as well as immediately (0h), 0.5h, 1h, 1.5h, 2h, 2.5h, 3h, 3.5h, 4h, 5h, and 6h following ingestion of two 5mg THC capsules. The battery included simple reaction time (SRT), go/no go reaction time (GNG), Corsi block tapping (CBT), visuospatial trail making (VTM), and a subjective questionnaire. Outcomes at each timepoint were compared to BL. Participants felt intoxicated 1-6h post-ingestion. SRT and SRT variability were increased from 2.5-3.5h and 3-4h, respectively. GNG accuracy was reduced from 1h-6h, and VTM errors were greater at 2h (all p
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".