Madeline H Meier1, Roberta A Schriber2, Jordan Beardslee2, Jamie Hanson3, Dustin Pardini2. 1. Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 85287-1104, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA. Electronic address: madeline.meier@asu.edu. 2. School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have tested the hypothesis that adolescent cannabis users show structural brain alterations in adulthood. The present study tested associations between prospectively-assessed trajectories of adolescent cannabis use and adult brain structure in a sample of boys followed to adulthood. METHODS: Data came from the Pittsburgh Youth Study - a longitudinal study of ˜1000 boys. Boys completed self-reports of cannabis use annually from age 13-19, and latent class growth analysis was used to identify different trajectories of adolescent cannabis use. Once adolescent cannabis trajectories were identified, boys were classified into their most likely cannabis trajectory. A subset of boys (n = 181) subsequently underwent structural neuroimaging in adulthood, when they were between 30-36 years old on average. For this subset, we grouped participants according to their classified adolescent cannabis trajectory and tested whether these groups showed differences in adult brain structure in 14 a priori regions of interest, including six subcortical (volume only: amygdala, hippocampus, nucleus accumbens, caudate, putamen, and pallidum) and eight cortical regions (volume and thickness: superior frontal gyrus; caudal and rostral middle frontal gyrus; inferior frontal gyrus, separated into pars opercularis, pars triangularis, and pars orbitalis; lateral and medial orbitofrontal gyrus). RESULTS: We identified four adolescent cannabis trajectories: non-users/infrequent users, desisters, escalators, and chronic-relatively frequent users. Boys in different trajectory subgroups did not differ on adult brain structure in any subcortical or cortical region of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescent cannabis use is not associated with structural brain differences in adulthood.
BACKGROUND: Few studies have tested the hypothesis that adolescent cannabis users show structural brain alterations in adulthood. The present study tested associations between prospectively-assessed trajectories of adolescent cannabis use and adult brain structure in a sample of boys followed to adulthood. METHODS: Data came from the Pittsburgh Youth Study - a longitudinal study of ˜1000 boys. Boys completed self-reports of cannabis use annually from age 13-19, and latent class growth analysis was used to identify different trajectories of adolescent cannabis use. Once adolescent cannabis trajectories were identified, boys were classified into their most likely cannabis trajectory. A subset of boys (n = 181) subsequently underwent structural neuroimaging in adulthood, when they were between 30-36 years old on average. For this subset, we grouped participants according to their classified adolescent cannabis trajectory and tested whether these groups showed differences in adult brain structure in 14 a priori regions of interest, including six subcortical (volume only: amygdala, hippocampus, nucleus accumbens, caudate, putamen, and pallidum) and eight cortical regions (volume and thickness: superior frontal gyrus; caudal and rostral middle frontal gyrus; inferior frontal gyrus, separated into pars opercularis, pars triangularis, and pars orbitalis; lateral and medial orbitofrontal gyrus). RESULTS: We identified four adolescent cannabis trajectories: non-users/infrequent users, desisters, escalators, and chronic-relatively frequent users. Boys in different trajectory subgroups did not differ on adult brain structure in any subcortical or cortical region of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescent cannabis use is not associated with structural brain differences in adulthood.
Authors: Edith V Sullivan; Ty Brumback; Susan F Tapert; Sandra A Brown; Fiona C Baker; Ian M Colrain; Devin Prouty; Michael D De Bellis; Duncan B Clark; Bonnie J Nagel; Kilian M Pohl; Adolf Pfefferbaum Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2019-09-09 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Marinka M G Koenis; Joke Durnez; Amanda L Rodrigue; Samuel R Mathias; Aaron F Alexander-Bloch; Jennifer A Barrett; Gaelle E Doucet; Sophia Frangou; Emma E M Knowles; Josephine Mollon; Dominique Denbow; Katrina Aberizk; Molly Zatony; Ronald J Janssen; Joanne E Curran; John Blangero; Russell A Poldrack; Godfrey D Pearlson; David C Glahn Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2020-12-19 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Zhishun Wang; Diana V Rodriguez-Moreno; Yael M Cycowicz; Lawrence V Amsel; Keely Cheslack-Postava; Xiaofu He; Megan Ryan; Lupo Geronazzo-Alman; George J Musa; Adam Bisaga; Christina W Hoven Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 5.399