ArticleResearch square2026
Behavioral and Self-Report Cognitive Impairment Differences between Fast-Acting, Standard, and Placebo Cannabis Edibles.
Article in Research square, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rationale: Fast-acting edible cannabis products are marketed as producing quicker effects than standard edibles, but whether faster absorption translates into earlier cognitive impairment due to cannabis intoxication is unclear. Objectives: We compared fast-acting, standard, and placebo edibles in a double-blind, within-subject crossover study of 20 adult individuals who frequently use cannabis. Methods: Participants completed three mobile laboratory sessions after ingesting either a fast-acting, standard, or placebo cannabis edible and were assessed repeatedly over 270 minutes using the DRUID impairment app and selected self-report items from the Subjective High Assessment Scale (SHAS). Results: Mixed-effects models showed limited evidence that the fast-acting edible produced significantly earlier impairment than the standard edible. Behavioral impairment showed no clear pattern over time. Self-reported effects were more consistent across both active edibles, with elevations in clumsiness, distorted time perception, and other subjective impairment outcomes relative to placebo. However, the fast-acting and standard edibles generally showed similar time courses, with little evidence of a meaningful advantage for the fast-acting formulation. Conclusions: Both active edibles produced several hours of subjective impairment, but the fast-acting product did not consistently yield significantly earlier cognitive effects than the standard edible.
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.