ArticleJournal of psychiatric research2025
Self-titration of cannabis consumption: An epidemiological perspective.
Article in Journal of psychiatric research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary validation of an experimental cannabis marketplace and its psychometric properties against an established measure of cannabis demand.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2026Article
- Vaping ΔExpert review of clinical pharmacologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cannabis legalization has expanded access to high-potency products (e.g., dab concentrates) that deliver large amounts of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). It is unclear whether cannabis consumers mitigate the effects of higher-potency products by consuming smaller amounts (i.e., self-titration). We investigated whether users adjust consumption amounts in response to potency when using cannabis flower and concentrates. Data come from four online surveys of U.S. cannabis consumers (N = 8158) reporting past-month flower and/or dab concentrate use. Participants reported their typical amounts (number of hits or grams) and potencies (%THC). We analyzed relationships between consumption amounts and %THC in three ways: (1) within-subject/between-product, (2) between-subject/between-product, (3) between-subject/within-product. To assess selection biases, we examined correlations among potency, use frequency, and age of initiation. Participants were approximately 52 % female, 84 % White, and 73 % reported daily cannabis use; average age was 42 years (SD = 16). In within-subject/between-product analyses, 59 %-92 % of participants used larger amounts of flower than concentrates. In between-subject/between-product analyses, flower-only consumers reported greater amounts than concentrate-only consumers (Median Hits: 8-14 vs. 5-8; Median Grams: 1-1.5 vs. 0.18-0.5). In between-subject/within-product analyses, using higher-THC versions of a product predicted larger amounts (Flower/Hits: r
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.