Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 655

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Neuropsychological Performance in Long-term Cannabis Users

Pope, Harrison G., Gruber, Amanda J., Hudson, James I., Huestis, Marilyn A., Yurgelun-Todd, Deborah·2001·Archives of General Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug in the United States, its long-term cognitive effects remain inadequately studied. METHODS: We recruited individuals aged 30 to 55 years in 3 groups: (1) 63 current heavy users who had smoked cannabis at least 5000 times in their lives and who were smoking daily at study entry; (2) 45 former heavy users who had also smoked at least 5000 times but fewer than 12 times in the last 3 months; and (3) 72 control subjects who had smoked no more than 50 times in their lives. Subjects underwent a 28-day washout from cannabis use, monitored by observed urine samples. On days 0, 1, 7, and 28, we administered a neuropsychological test battery to assess general intellectual function, abstraction ability, sustained attention, verbal fluency, and ability to learn and recall new verbal and visuospatial information. Test results were analyzed by repeated-measures regression analysis, adjusting for potentially confounding variables. RESULTS: At days 0, 1, and 7, current heavy users scored significantly below control subjects on recall of word lists, and this deficit was associated with users' urinary 11-nor-9-carboxy-Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations at study entry. By day 28, however, there were virtually no significant differences among the groups on any of the test results, and no significant associations between cumulative lifetime cannabis use and test scores. CONCLUSION: Some cognitive deficits appear detectable at least 7 days after heavy cannabis use but appear reversible and related to recent cannabis exposure rather than irreversible and related to cumulative lifetime use.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archpsyc.58.10.909

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 655

Metadata

Authors
Pope, H. G., Gruber, A. J., Hudson, J. I., Huestis, M. A., & Yurgelun-Todd, D.
Venue
Archives of General Psychiatry
Published
2001-10-01
Volume
58
Issue
10
Pages
909
ISSN
0003-990X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2132159513
Cited by
655
References
4
FWCI
15.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Neuropsychological Performance in Long-term Cannabis Users. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archpsyc.58.10.909
The paper
Pope, H. G., Gruber, A. J., Hudson, J. I., Huestis, M. A., & Yurgelun-Todd, D. (2001). Neuropsychological Performance in Long-term Cannabis Users. Archives of General Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.58.10.909

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.