MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132928713

Effects of Extended Cannabis Abstinence on Depression and Anhedonia in Individuals with Comorbid Major Depressive Disorder and Cannabis Use Disorder

2024· dissertation· W7132928713 on OpenAlexaff
Molly Yunyi Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2024
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnhedoniaMajor depressive disorderCannabisAbstinenceDepression (economics)Alcohol use disorderCannabis DependenceComorbidity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comorbid Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD) is associated with more severe symptomatology, poorer treatment outcomes, and reduced life satisfaction compared to MDD alone. Anhedonia, a loss of interest in or pleasure from previously rewarding activities, is a core feature of MDD and additionally contributes to reward processing and CUD. We examined the effects of 28-days of cannabis abstinence on symptoms of depression in individuals with comorbid CUD and MDD. Participants (N=25) underwent 28-days of cannabis abstinence, randomized to a contingent reinforcement ($300) and non-contingent reinforcement group. Biochemically verified abstinence and clinical symptoms, including subjective and objective measures of anhedonia, were assessed weekly. Cannabis abstainers (56%) exhibited clinically significant improvements in depressive symptoms, and subjective measures of anhedonia, but not objective. Motivational deficits and anhedonia associated with CUD and MDD improve with cannabis abstinence, highlighting the importance of targeting cannabis use in the treatment of MDD.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research→French-language works237,207→