Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28364340›Full record

ArticlePsychopharmacology2017

Orbitofrontal and caudate volumes in cannabis users: a multi-site mega-analysis comparing dependent versus non-dependent users.

Yann Chye, Nadia Solowij, Chao Suo, Albert Batalla, Janna Cousijn, Anna E Goudriaan, Rocio Martin-Santos, Sarah Whittle, Valentina Lorenzetti, Murat Yücel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychopharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Neuroimaging Biomarkers in Addiction.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Which came first: Cannabis use or deficits in impulse control?Progress in neuro-psychopharmacology & biological psychiatry · 2021
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Yann ChyeBrain and Mental Health Laboratory, Monash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Nadia SolowijSchool of Psychology and Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
Chao SuoBrain and Mental Health Laboratory, Monash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Albert BatallaDepartment of Psychiatry, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Janna CousijnDepartment of Developmental Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Anna E GoudriaanDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Institute for Addiction Research, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Rocio Martin-SantosDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychology, Hospital Clinic, IDIBAPS, CIBERSAM and Institute of Neuroscience, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Sarah WhittleMelbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne and Melbourne Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Valentina LorenzettiBrain and Mental Health Laboratory, Monash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. vlor@liv.ac.uk.
Murat YücelBrain and Mental Health Laboratory, Monash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. murat.yucel@monash.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleCannabis (CB) use and dependence are associated with regionally specific alterations to brain circuitry and substantial psychosocial impairment.

objectivesThe objective of this study was to investigate the association between CB use and dependence, and the volumes of brain regions critically involved in goal-directed learning and behaviour-the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and caudate.

methodsIn the largest multi-site structural imaging study of CB users vs healthy controls (HC), 140 CB users and 121 HC were recruited from four research sites. Group differences in OFC and caudate volumes were investigated between HC and CB users and between 70 dependent (CB-dep) and 50 non-dependent (CB-nondep) users. The relationship between quantity of CB use and age of onset of use and caudate and OFC volumes was explored.

resultsCB users (consisting of CB-dep and CB-nondep) did not significantly differ from HC in OFC or caudate volume. CB-dep compared to CB-nondep users exhibited significantly smaller volume in the medial and the lateral OFC. Lateral OFC volume was particularly smaller in CB-dep females, and reduced volume in the CB-dep group was associated with higher monthly cannabis dosage.

conclusionsSmaller medial OFC volume may be driven by CB dependence-related mechanisms, while smaller lateral OFC volume may be due to ongoing exposure to cannabinoid compounds. The results highlight a distinction between cannabis use and dependence and warrant examination of gender-specific effects in studies of CB dependence.

Indexed as

Marijuana AbuseBrainBrain MappingChoice BehaviorFrontal LobeHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMarijuana SmokingPrefrontal CortexSubstance-Related DisordersBrain structureCannabisCaudateDependenceGenderMRIOrbitofrontal cortex

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.