Cited by 50Cannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Functional connectivity and cannabis use in high-risk adolescents

Open access
Houck, Jon M., Bryan, Angela D., Feldstein Ewing, Sarah W.·2013·The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adolescence is a unique neurodevelopmental period when regions of the brain most able to assess risk and reward are still in development. Cannabis use during adolescence has been associated with persistent negative outcomes. Although measures of resting brain activity are useful in assessing functional connectivity, such measures have not been broadly applied in adolescent cannabis-users. OBJECTIVES: The goal of the present study was to analyze the associations between cannabis use and resting brain activity in a sample of high-risk adolescents. METHODS: Eighty-two high-risk youth between 14-18 years old were recruited from a juvenile justice day program. Youth completed a brief neurocognitive battery including assessments of cannabis use and a 5-minute resting functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scan. Intrinsic connectivity networks were extracted using the GIFT toolbox. Brain activity in a fronto-temporal network was compared in youth with high cannabis use vs. low cannabis use using an independent-samples t-test with alcohol use entered as a covariate. RESULTS: Analysis revealed two elements within the fronto-temporal network related to cannabis use: one in middle frontal gyrus related to high cannabis use, and one in middle temporal gyrus related to low cannabis use. Only the frontal source survived application of a cluster size threshold and was significant at p < 0.005. CONCLUSIONS: These results are consistent with patterns of activity in adult cannabis-users. The observed effect may reflect either pre-existing risk factors or near-term consequences of cannabis use. Prevention and intervention strategies that address fronto-temporal functioning may be particularly helpful in this population.

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 · 10.3109/00952990.2013.837914

Cites

93 of 93 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?

  • Heavy cannabis users have higher DERS scores than less frequent cannabis users, and polydrug users have higher DERS scores than those only diagnosed with alcohol use disorder.

    “In other studies, heavy cannabis users had higher DERS scores than less frequent cannabis users [89], and polydrug users had higher DERS scores than those only diagnosed with AUD [90, 91].”

    From Emotion regulation in substance use disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [89]

    The Method section says the study measured Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale scores and divided adolescents into high- and low-cannabis-use groups. The retrieved Results passage compares those groups on brain activity, not DERS scores; no passage found reports that heavier users had higher DERS scores. The polydrug-versus-AUD comparison is attached to other citations in the citing sentence, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    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
Houck, J. M., Bryan, A. D., & Feldstein Ewing, S. W.
Affiliations
  • Mind Research Network (US)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • University of New Mexico, Albuquerque NMUSA
Venue
The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse
Published
2013-11-01
Volume
39
Issue
6
Pages
414-423
ISSN
  • 0095-2990 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-9891
OpenAlex
W2010398686
Cited by
50
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3
FWCI
3.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (K01AA021431)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (L30 DA034353)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (R01NR013332)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
adolescent cannabis use, resting-state functional connectivity, resting-state networks, fronto-temporal network, middle frontal gyrus, middle temporal gyrus, at-risk youth, juvenile justice, alcohol consumption, brain development
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Brain, Female, Humans, Juvenile Delinquency, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Marijuana Smoking, Neuropsychological Tests, Risk Factors

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