4.7 Review

Regular cannabis use is associated with altered activation of central executive and default mode networks even after prolonged abstinence in adolescent users: Results from a complementary meta-analysis

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
卷 96, 期 -, 页码 45-55

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.10.026

关键词

Cannabis; THC; Functional magnetic resonance imaging; Meta-analysis; Abstinence

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK through a Clinician Scientist award [NIHR-CS-11-001]
  2. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  3. Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London
  4. South London and Maudsley Trustees
  5. MRC [MC_PC_14105] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Whether the effects of cannabis use on brain function persist or recover following abstinence remains unclear. Therefore, using meta-analytic techniques, we examined whether functional alterations measured using fMRI persist in cannabis users abstinent for over 25 days (or 600 h) as evidence suggests that the effects on cognitive performance no longer persist beyond this period. Systematic literature search identified 20 studies, of which, 12 examined current cannabis users (CCU) (361 CCU versus 394 non-cannabis using controls (NU)) and 3 examined abstinent cannabis users (ACU) in 5 separate comparisons (98 ACU versus 106 NU). Studies in ACU were carried out in adolescents and suggest significantly greater activation in components of the central executive and default mode networks in adolescent ACU compared to NU. While this evidence is to be interpreted with caution because studies were carried out in overlapping samples, they indicate a pressing need for independent confirmation whether certain neurofunctional alterations in adolescent cannabis users may persist even after cannabis and Its metabolites are likely to have left their bodies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据