ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Artificial Intelligence Approximates Human Affect Ratings of Cannabis Images.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cannabis imagery is proliferating online and can elicit affective responses related to use. Scalable tools are needed to evaluate how this proliferation could influence population health. This pilot study tested whether multimodal generative artificial intelligence (MGAI) can reproduce subjective human affect ratings of cannabis images. Four MGAI agents (model: gpt-4o-2024-11-20) were created to parallel the four human participant subgroups from Macatee et al. 2021, defined by primary method of cannabis administration (bong, bowl, joint/blunt, vaporizer). Using Macatee et al.'s participant instructions and standardized image set, each agent rated images of its primary method of administration on valence, arousal, and urge constructs. For each image-construct pair, n=100 ratings were generated in separate conversational threads using zero-shot prompting. Image-level MGAI mean ratings were compared with human mean ratings using Two One-Sided Tests of equivalence and Spearman correlations. Although formal statistical equivalence was rare (4% valence, 11% arousal, 3% urge), MGAI ratings approximated human ratings closely (Mean difference of mean ratings = - 0.31, SD = 1.23) and correlations between MGAI and human mean ratings were moderate to high: 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.