Cited by 48Cannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments

A Systematic Review of the Neurocognitive Effects of Cannabis Use in Older Adults

Open access
Scott, Emmi P., Brennan, Emily, Benitez, Andreana·2019·Current Addiction Reports

Abstract

Purpose of review Older adults currently represent the fastest growing demographic of cannabis users, yet few studies have investigated the effects of cannabis use on cognitive functioning in aging. We conducted a systematic review of the recent literature examining cognitive outcomes associated with cannabis use in older adults, with and without neurocognitive disorders, to clarify the potential neuroprotective benefits and risks of cognitive decline in this population. Recent findings We identified 26 studies examining cognitive outcomes associated with medical and recreational use of cannabis in healthy aging, dementia, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, HIV, and pain populations. Although variability in the cannabis products used, outcomes assessed, and study quality limits the conclusions that can be made, modest reductions in cognitive performance were generally detected with higher doses and heavier lifetime use. Summary This review highlights the need for additional high-quality research using standardized, validated assessments of cannabis exposure and cognitive outcomes. Reliable measures and longitudinal data are necessary to better characterize the effects of cannabis use on cognitive aging, as well as differential effects of recreational and medical cannabis.

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 · 10.1007/s40429-019-00285-9

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is preliminary evidence of cognitive impulsivity and poorer verbal memory and visual recognition in older studies of recreational cannabis users.

    “There is preliminary evidence of cognitive impulsivity and poorer verbal memory and visual recognition in older studies of recreational users [28].”

    From Cannabis, cannabinoids and health: a review of evidence on risks and medical benefits (2025) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Results > Aging section (page unavailable) reports modest verbal-memory deficits associated with heavy cannabis use. It also reports an association between problematic use and impulsivity symptoms in men, but that survey did not analyze older adults separately or establish cognitive impulsivity. The passages do not report poorer visual recognition in recreational users. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Cognitive performance was generally not affected by age, although cognitive impairments were worse in older people with psychosis (e.g., cognitive impulsivity, verbal memory, visual recognition).

    “Cognitive performance was generally not affected by age, although cognitive impairments were worse in older people with psychosis (e.g., cognitive impulsivity, verbal memory, visual recognition) [28].”

    From Cannabis, cannabinoids and health: a review of evidence on risks and medical benefits (2025) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Results > Aging section discusses cannabis use, verbal memory, and cognitive change over time, but not whether age generally affects cognitive performance in people with psychosis. Searches for psychosis, cognitive impulsivity, and visual recognition found no passage addressing the claimed pattern of worse impairment in older people with psychosis. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Scott, E. P., Brennan, E., & Benitez, A.
Affiliations
Medical University of South Carolina (US)
Corresponding author
Benitez, Andreana
Venue
Current Addiction Reports
Published
2019-10-22
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
443-455
ISSN
2196-2952 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2981984500
Cited by
48
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4
FWCI
2.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Addiction Reports (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (K23AG044434)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Parkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Keywords
cannabis use, older adults, cognitive aging, neurocognitive decline, dementia, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, HIV, pain management, medical cannabis, recreational cannabis, neuroprotection

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