Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37202444›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Cognitive test performance in chronic cannabis flower users, concentrate users, and non-users.

Carrie Cuttler, Aria S Petrucci, Emily M LaFrance

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Carrie CuttlerDepartment of Psychology, Washington State University, PO Box 644820, Pullman, WA, 99164-4820, USA. carrie.cuttler@wsu.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5890-2985
Aria S PetrucciDepartment of Psychology, Washington State University, PO Box 644820, Pullman, WA, 99164-4820, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9051-5590
Emily M LaFranceDepartment of Psychology, Washington State University, PO Box 644820, Pullman, WA, 99164-4820, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5198-5722

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extremely high-potency cannabis concentrates are becoming increasingly available and popular among consumers. While prior research indicates these products are perceived to have greater detrimental effects relative to cannabis flower, few studies have examined their relative objective effects, and no existing studies have compared the cognitive test performance of sober flower users, concentrate users, and non-users. A total of 198 healthy adults (98 non-users, 46 exclusive flower users, and 54 concentrate users) were administered a battery of tests of memory, psychomotor speed, attention, and executive functioning under sober laboratory-controlled conditions. Significant group differences were detected on tests of verbal free recall and episodic prospective memory, with both the flower users and concentrate users demonstrating significantly worse performance than non-users. Concentrate (but not flower) users performed worse than non-users on a measure of source memory, but contrary to our hypothesis, there were no significant differences between flower and concentrate users on any of the cognitive tests. Results indicate that, under sober conditions, individuals who regularly use concentrates are no more cognitively impacted than those who exclusively use flower. These null findings may reflect the tendency for concentrate users to self-titrate and use significantly lower quantities of concentrates than flower.

Indexed as

CannabisHallucinogensAdultCannabinoid Receptor AgonistsExecutive FunctionHumansMental RecallNeuropsychological TestsCannabinoid Receptor AgonistsHallucinogens

Identifiers

PMID37202444
PMCPMC10195824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.