Cited by 178Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Corpus callosum damage in heavy marijuana use: preliminary evidence from diffusion tensor tractography and tract-based spatial statistics

Arnone, D., Barrick, T.R., Chengappa, S., Mackay, C.E., Clark, C.A., Abou-Saleh, M.T.·2008·NeuroImage

Abstract

Heavy marijuana use has well established long term consequences for cognition and mental health, but the effect on brain structure is less well understood. We used an MRI technique that is sensitive to the structural integrity of brain tissue combined with a white matter mapping tractography technique to investigate structural changes in the corpus callosum (CC). Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) was obtained in eleven heavy marijuana users who started using marijuana in early adolescence and eleven age matched controls. Mean diffusivity (MD) and fractional anisotropy (FA) (which measure structural integrity and tract coherence, respectively) were analysed within the corpus callosum which was spatially defined using tractography and tract-based spatial statistics (TBSS). MD was significantly increased in marijuana users relative to controls in the region of the CC where white matter passes between the prefrontal lobes. This observation suggests impaired structural integrity affecting the fibre tracts of the CC and is in keeping with previous reports of altered and diversified activation patterns in marijuana users. There was a trend towards a positive correlation between MD and length of use suggesting the possibility of a cumulative effect of marijuana over time and that a younger age at onset of use may predispose individuals to structural white matter damage. Structural abnormalities revealed in the CC may underlie cognitive and behavioural consequences of long term heavy marijuana use.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.02.064

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Arnone, D., Barrick, T. R., Chengappa, S., Mackay, C. E., Clark, C. A., & Abou-Saleh, M. T.
Affiliations
  • Warneford Hospital (GB)
  • St George's, University of London (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-07
Volume
41
Issue
3
Pages
1067-1074
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036091286
Cited by
178
References
57
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 9
FWCI
14.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of London
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
cannabis use, heavy cannabis use, corpus callosum, white matter integrity, mean diffusivity, fractional anisotropy, duration of use, prefrontal white matter, brain structural changes, adolescent cannabis use
MeSH terms
Adult, Cannabis, Corpus Callosum, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Male, Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging

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