Wednesday, September 16, 2026

Nearly one third of college-age ‘BORG’ drinkers report blacking out

  A newly popular college drinking trend, the blackout rage gallon (BORG), fosters binge drinking and can lead to a host of alcohol-related harms, according to a new study in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, published at Rutgers University.

BORGs (blackout rage gallons) on brick steps 

Caption

BORGs (blackout rage gallons) on brick steps

Credit


Prevalent in the drinking culture at many U.S. colleges and universities since around 2020, BORGs are one-gallon plastic jugs filled with alcohol and a choice of mixings and flavorings. Preparation for a BORG event, which is often a daytime gathering such as a tailgate or festival, typically involves decorating one’s personal BORG with a clever phrase or social-media-ready pun--for example, “It’s BORG o’clock somewhere” or “BORG to be wild.”

“Excessive drinking in young adults has been fueled by drinking games for many decades,” says lead researcher Andrea C. King, professor of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at the University of Chicago. “But the mixing of hard liquor and additive flavorings in BORGs may be particularly harmful given the sweetness of the beverage and the lure of sharing one’s BORG and tasting others’ concoctions.”

The gallon-sized drink can contain up to a fifth of liquor, or about 17 standard drinks, according to survey answers obtained from more than 100 study participants from a range of private and public U.S. colleges and universities. King’s study is the first to present data on BORG use, as well as users’ and non-users’ perceptions and attitudes, positive and negative consequences, and future intentions.

“Nearly one third of respondents said they experienced a blackout from a BORG event,” says King. “While almost all reported they got buzzed or drunk, some (17%) vomited, and many (59%) said or did embarrassing things, we know that blackouts—that is, disruptions in memory consolidation due to heavy imbibing of alcohol—are a more serious consequence.”

The study also refers to reports of BORG use resulting in injuries and emergency room visits in several instances.

Such findings underscore misconceptions about BORGs, which social-media influencers originally touted as supporting harm-reduction efforts: Some BORG recipe ingredients shared online include electrolytes, caffeine, and/or water to offset a hangover or minimize drunkenness. The study’s data show that BORGs do not support these positive effects.

“BORG use was fueled on social media during the pandemic as a way to reduce virus transmission and drink contamination,” adds King. Yet study participants reported frequently sharing their BORGs with others. Further, they are not simply a pandemic-based phenomenon as BORG use remains popular at special events, day drinking parties, or tailgating before sporting games.

Despite the incidence of alcohol-related harms, many participants said they will likely continue to engage in BORG drinking. Yet, studies such as King’s can inform prevention and education efforts, starting with awareness on the part of both students and parents.

“Having an open discussion can go a long way toward reducing harms at college,” says King. “There are choice points along the way, ranging from whether to attend a BORG event, and if one does attend, whether to bring a BORG beverage and how much (if any) alcohol to put in the beverage. It doesn’t have to be all-or-none, as being aware and mindful to minimize risks can be key.”

College students are getting enough protein but want healthier options

 

A new University of Maine study*^ has identified what researchers describe as a campus protein challenge. Although students generally consumed adequate amounts of protein, many reported that campus dining halls failed to provide protein choices they considered flavorful, appealing or prepared in ways they viewed as healthful. 

Instead of asking for more protein, students described wanting better protein experiences, greater variety, better preparation, higher-quality and less heavily processed protein options and meals they were actually excited to eat. 

That distinction could have important implications for campus dining programs, which often evaluate menus based on nutritional adequacy but may overlook whether students perceive those foods as desirable enough to choose. 

"Having protein on the menu doesn't necessarily mean students see it as a good option," said Jade McNamara, Ph.D., corresponding author and researcher in the University of Maine School of Food and Agriculture. "Our findings suggest campuses should think beyond simply providing protein and consider whether students have access to protein choices they find flavorful, varied and prepared in ways they perceive as healthful." 

Evidence of the campus protein challenge 

Researchers surveyed 501 University of Maine undergraduates and conducted focus groups with 20 students. 

Students appeared to be meeting protein recommendations. Participants scored an average 4.8 out of 5 on the total protein foods component of the Short Healthy Eating Index, indicating generally adequate protein intake. 

However, qualitative research analysis of the focus groups revealed that students repeatedly described campus dining halls as barriers to accessing protein foods they actually wanted to eat. 

When describing their experience with protein foods on campus, participants cited: 

  • Limited variety and unappealing options  

  • Heavily processed choices  

  • Fried preparation methods  

  • Inconsistent quality  

  • Flavorless preparations  

  • Limited healthy options  

One student described campus dining as having, "…the slim pickings for healthy foods that are protein-rich." Another said, "Even if they do offer more protein-rich options... they're just not appetizing." 

Researchers believe the issue may be less about protein quantity and more about protein quality, appeal and accessibility. 

The protein challenge reflects broader barriers to healthy eating 

Students' frustrations with protein were part of a larger nutrition picture. 

The average Healthy Eating Index score was just 47.7 out of 100 in this sample of undergraduate students, and one in three students (33.7%) experienced low or very low food security. 

Students described multiple barriers to healthier eating, including 

  • Rising food costs  

  • Limited time  

  • Restricted kitchen access  

  • Minimal cooking equipment  

  • Transportation challenges  

  • Residence hall living  

For many students, the reality of campus life meant preparing meals with little more than a microwave while relying heavily on dining halls that often failed to provide protein options they considered appealing. 

Students see promise in meal kits 

Although nearly 90% of students had never used a meal-kit delivery service, many believed meal kits could help address some of the barriers they experienced. 

Students valued: 

  • Convenience  

  • Simple preparation  

  • Portioned ingredients  

  • Customizable meals  

Affordability remained the biggest concern, suggesting future campus meal-kit programs would need to balance convenience with cost. 

What this means for campus dining 

The findings suggest the next opportunity for campus dining may not be serving more protein, but serving protein in ways students are more likely to choose. 

Researchers say future campus food solutions should prioritize protein options that are: 

  • Flavorful  

  • Varied  

  • High-quality 

  • Convenient  

  • Affordable  

  • Prepared in ways students perceive as healthful (e.g., not fried, not cooked in a lot of grease) 

  • Easy to incorporate into busy student lifestyles  

The findings also provide a roadmap for evaluating practical meal solutions designed around students' real-world preferences. 

For foodservice operators, that could include building meals around versatile, flavorful proteins that pair naturally with vegetables, whole grains and globally inspired flavors to improve both the appeal and overall quality of campus meals. 

Autistic children ages 4-6 showed improved social skills after summer program

 A summer intervention program for autistic children ages 4-6 with no intellectual disability significantly improved their social performance, according to a study by researchers at the Institute for Autism Research (IAR) at the University at Buffalo. It was published in Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders in July.

“Completion of our 5-week summerMAXyc program was associated with significant social, behavioral and autism symptom benefits for the children,” says Christopher J. Lopata, PsyD, co-author on the study and co-founder/co-director of the IAR with Marcus L. Thomeer, PhD; both are professors of pediatrics in the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at UB. “Developing such foundational skills early in development sets the stage for development of more advanced skills later in childhood, adolescence and adulthood, thus leading to better long-term outcomes.”

PHOTOS AVAILABLE

Thomeer notes that while programs for autistic children with no intellectual disability ages 4-6 do exist, few provide intensive social programming. This population also tends to engage in significantly fewer group recreational activities in general than their peers without autism, further limiting social development opportunities.

“This constitutes a significant gap in social intervention development and service provision, which prompted our interest in developing such a program for this population,” he says.

Five weeks, five days a week

The intensive summerMAXyc program was conducted five-days-a-week over five weeks in the summer. The program follows a similar model to that of the IAR’s successful, evidence-based summerMAX program for older children, which has helped improve the social skills of hundreds of children since it began 23 years ago.

In the summerMAXyc program, each 6-hour day included 8 cycles of 30 minutes each, which began with 10 minutes of instruction in particular skills, such as having a conversation or accepting consequences, followed by a 20-minute cooperative activity.

According to the study, the children found that the program was fun and helped them learn skills and make new friends. Average child satisfaction was 14.9 out of a possible 15 with parent satisfaction at 69.8 out of a possible 70. Parents reported significant improvement in the children’s social skills, behaviors and autism symptoms.

There is broad consensus that earlier intervention is associated with better outcomes for autistic children. And parents are often the first to recognize the need.

“Parents reach out to us because their child has difficulty navigating the social world,” says Thomeer. “They describe their autistic children as wanting to have friends but not knowing what to do in social situations.”

Families noticed the difference

Over the course of their child’s participation in summerMAXyc, Thomeer says, parents reported that other family members began to notice the child playing with others, not just playing alone. They also noticed that the child now makes eye contact, asks about others, plays games without getting upset and can recognize and understand different emotions.

According to Thomeer, a mother of one of the participants reported that her child not only noticed that she was frustrated about something, but also told her to “squeeze the orange,” a technique the children are taught where they squeeze an imaginary orange and take a deep breath in order to calm themselves down.

One of the study’s major strengths involved the use of objective observers to assess the children’s social performance. According to Lopata, parents are a critical source of information, however there is a risk of bias because they know that their children are in the intervention. Most social skills intervention studies for autistic children rely on parent ratings alone and therefore suffer from this limitation, he adds.

 “Our use of masked observers – trained individuals – eliminated that risk because they were unaware that the children received an intervention,” says Lopata.

The authors also note that the intervention was similarly successful in improving the children’s social performance and autism features regardless of the child’s age, IQ level, communication ability or level of diagnostic symptoms.

“There is widespread recognition in the field that no intervention will be effective for all autistic children and there is a significant need to determine which children are most likely to benefit from a specific intervention,” says Lopata. “Answering this question can help ensure that scarce resources are efficiently allocated and that children receiving a given intervention are most likely to benefit.”

The next step is to test the intervention in a large-scale randomized clinical trial with a control group, which would be a first for such a social intervention in this population.

Sibling interactions are an untapped resource for early engineering education

While the roles of parents in a child's education are well-studied, new research is taking a look at the role a sibling plays in collaborating on educational projects, and they found a few key roles often developed in this working relationship.

Recently published research by researchers at Binghamton University and Indiana University recorded nearly 13 hours of video of six pairs of siblings, ages 2-8, working on at-home engineering projects. These projects included building a rain gauge, a paper roller coaster, and an animal house to protect animals from the elements. They found that over the course of these projects, clear roles of the older sibling developed.

The most common was a colleague/peer arrangement, in which both siblings worked side by side on the task. Older siblings in this role often positioned their younger sibling as a partner or collaborator.

Second, there were many times when the older sibling acted as a "lead engineer" on the project -- clearly the one in charge. Some of the examples recorded on video varied: one showed the younger sibling being ignored, while in another, the younger sibling simply waited for instructions from the older sibling before carrying out a task. 

Third and most uniquely, other examples showed the older sibling taking on the form of a provocateur, intentionally teasing or provoking emotions from the younger sibling during a task. In one example of this, provocation did not hinder the project; instead, it led the younger sibling to defend their opinions to the older sibling. Other times, the younger sibling stayed engaged even in the wake of provocation, and also helped build toward solving a problem.

The roles siblings took on largely depended on the existing relationship they had, and the working relationships they developed varied greatly. Still, researchers found that older siblings can be natural and effective teachers in education. Sibling relationships can be a safe space for children to develop engineering-related skills in a way they can't with their friends or teachers. The researchers suggest that more educational engineering programs should be developed that tap into the sibling relationship at home and in after-school programs.

If you would like to interview the lead researcher on this study, Binghamton University Associate Professor Amber Simpson, please send an email to David Hermanovitch at dhermanovitc@binghamton.edu.

Tuesday, September 15, 2026

Combining words with gestures helps children learn

 As children return to school, new research from the University of Iowa shows how parents can help their kids learn while literally being on the same wavelength. 

In a new study, neuroscientists found that adults who use speech and hand gestures when interacting with their child achieve “neural synchrony,” where brain waves in the parent match their child’s. Ece Demir-Lira, associate professor in the UI Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences and the study’s corresponding author, says combining words with hand gestures can be applied by parents and teachers alike.

“We find it’s not how much time a parent is with their child, it’s more about the nature of the interaction,” Demir-Lira says. “Those interactions can be even richer if the parent provides additional cues to their children via speech and gesture or encourages their kids to gesture with their hands, too.”

Demir-Lira and graduate student Ying Li wanted to understand how parents help young children solve problems. The researchers especially were interested in whether a particular level of engagement — which they call scaffolding — was best to help kids learn. Previous research has indicated kids learn best when instructions include speech and gestures, but those studies didn’t include parents and children working together or monitor in real time what was happening in their brains.

The researchers enlisted 42 parent-child couples to complete variations of a seven-piece puzzle. The only instructions they were given was the shape to make with the puzzle pieces, such as a bird or a house. While they worked to complete the puzzle, the researchers monitored both participants’ brain activity simultaneously every 30 seconds through a technique that measures blood flow in the brain. The team also recorded the parent-child couples, to track their speech and actions during the puzzle tasks.

In their study, Demir-Lira and Li found that when the parent added gestures to their verbal instructions, blood flow rose in the adult brain’s perception area — the region that senses another’s success or struggle — and simultaneously in the problem-solving area of the child’s brain.

“The same brain wave in the parent and child goes up and down in synchrony together, like two dancers dancing,” Demir-Lira says.

The researchers found that adults who relied only on speech to guide their child with solving a puzzle showed a corresponding rise in brain activity at the beginning, but that connection weakened as the task progressed before rebounding toward the end. Demir-Lira interprets this as an initial burst of connectivity as the two attempt to complete the puzzle, followed by a period when the child loses focus, and ending with another attempt by the parent to help the child complete the puzzle. 

Parents who gave no verbal or physical instructions had the lowest linked brain activity with their child, the researchers report.

While not directly addressed in this study, the researchers believe parents who used speech and gesture were more successful in guiding their child in puzzle solving because they could accentuate a vocal cue by pointing to a puzzle piece or showing how two puzzle pieces go together.

“We think speech and gesture divide the information; they complement each other. Gesture implies spatial relations, which speech is not as good at accomplishing,” Demir-Lira says.

She has seen this when helping her 9-year-old daughter with math problems. For example, when Demir-Lira combines oral instructions with gestures to highlight both sides of a math equation, she says her daughter seems to more easily grasp the material.

“It’s about being more efficient at packaging the information, so the child can understand it more easily,” she says.

The study is titled “Parental speech and gesture scaffolding moderate the neural dynamics of parent-child synchrony.” It was published online on June 26 in the journal Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. Li is the study’s first author.

The National Institutes of Health, through the Clinical and Translational Science Awards program, funded the research. Li’s involvement was funded by an NIH Predoctoral Training Grant.

 

Raising kids in a digital world with less fear, more strategy

 In the late 1800s, newspapers ran alarming headlines about a dangerous new technology corrupting the nation’s youth. Books. Kids were sneaking off to libraries to read Horatio Alger, and parents were convinced it would ruin them.

More than a century later, the medium has changed dramatically. But the fear, experts say, has not.

The tension between panic and practicality was at the heart of a packed panel discussion Sept. 8 at UC Irvine, the third installment of the “Raising the Next Generation in the Age of AI” series. Co-presented by UCI’s School of Social Ecology, the Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences, the Office of Research, the Connected Learning Lab, and CERES (Connecting the EdTech Research EcoSystem), the event brought together researchers, a tech industry leader and a youth advocate for a candid, research-grounded conversation about helping families navigate the challenges of raising children in an increasingly digital world.

Moderated by Candice Odgers, UCI Chancellor’s Professor of psychology and informatics, the discussion featured Yalda Uhls, founder and CEO of the Center for Scholars and Storytellers at UCLA; Melissa Mazmanian, UCI professor of informatics and organization and management; Vani Henderson, head of UX Research, Youth, Trust and Safety at YouTube; and Larz May, founder of #HalfTheStory and co-founder and CEO of Ginko.

The panelists steered the conversation toward empowerment, offering parents concrete strategies they could act on immediately.

Uhls reminded the audience that parental anxiety over new media is nothing new — from novels in the 1800s to Pac-Man in the 1980s, every generation has feared the latest technology would corrupt its children. The research, she argued, often tells a more nuanced story.

“What hasn’t changed is parental fear,” Uhls said. “A truly unique brain and a unique way of thinking is never going to be able to be replaced by technology. Help young people understand that.”

Uhls also drew on decades of parenting research to argue that what works offline works online, too: children thrive with a combination of reasonable rules and genuine warmth.

“Trust Your Gut”

“The trust-your-gut thing is really, really important,” she said, describing how she ultimately allowed her own daughter to spend significant time on video games despite her own anxiety — a decision she said paid off. Her daughter went on to be her class valedictorian and received two job offers out of college.

She added that navigating today's media landscape requires teaching children how to evaluate what they consume.

“It’s really important to help your children understand media literacy,” Uhls said, noting that while young people may outpace their parents on certain tools, they still need guidance in recognizing misinformation and understanding how content is produced and by whom.

Mazmanian, whose research involved spending up to 100 hours inside nine different family homes, found that the media rules that actually stuck weren’t the ones handed down by schools or parenting groups, they were the ones that came from a parent’s instincts about their specific child.

“Ask yourself, what am I scared of? Really, truly, what am I scared of? And why?” she said. “Am I scared because I’ve been watching the news? Because my school told me to be? Or, because I’m seeing something really concrete happen with my child? Those are really different reasons, and they call for really different answers.”

Mazmanian’s study of 100 parent-teen pairs revealed that teens are significantly more forgiving of their parents’ screen time than parents are of theirs.

More importantly, she said, the families with the most conflict were those where teens felt their parents simply didn’t understand what they were doing online — whether socializing, creating or exploring hobbies.

YouTube Tricks

Henderson shared that many parents don’t realize how many controls already exist within YouTube’s ecosystem:

  • The YouTube Kids app lets parents select the right content level for their child and offers options to set a timer, block specific videos or channels, or limit their child to watching only hand-picked channels 
  • Kid Accounts on regular YouTube allow parents to link their account to a child’s and select content settings that limit what their child can watch.
  • YouTube Shorts can be set to a timer, or turned off entirely.
  • Parents and teens also have the option to link accounts to share teen channel activity; and parents can set digital wellbeing tools for their teen.

“I take my role as somebody who works at YouTube with a great sense of responsibility,” Henderson said, “because I’m helping to build products not only for my kids and my neighbors’ kids, but for your kids and kids all over the world.”

Panelists agreed that bans alone — whether on phones or AI tools — are a starting line, not a solution.

May, who works directly with students and schools across the country, was direct about the reality on the ground.

“Whether you want to hear it or not, your kids are using AI,” she said. “It might not be happening in the school walls, but when they go home, it’s happening.”

She warned that fear-based approaches are driving teens toward apathy, which she called the real risk, greater than any single technology.

She pointed to one student so anxious about his school’s murky AI policy that he now records himself doing homework every night, just in case he needs to prove he didn’t cheat.

“Behind every screen is a child’s superpower,” May said, “and AI should be used to amplify that superpower, not replace it.”

May argued that the antidote to screen overuse isn’t more restriction — it’s genuine engagement.

“The opposite of AI is social connection,” she said, urging parents to invest in the real-world interests and relationships that can meaningfully compete with the pull of devices.

May also turned the anxiety conversation back on the adults in the room.

“The real anxious generation is you,” she told the audience, challenging parents to examine whether their fears are truly about their children or about their own discomfort with a world they don’t fully understand.

Rather than coming from a place of anxiety and fear, May encouraged parents to use technology as a window into their child’s interests. For example, she suggested asking a reluctant writer to narrate their essay aloud on a walk, then using AI to help shape that voice into a written draft, a way of letting the child’s authentic voice lead, with technology in a supporting role.

Expert Tips

“We’re seeing from many countries that the bans aren’t working; that many of the cell phone policies might not be delivering on the promises they were made on, and so, we want to be here to find that solution space with all of you,” Odgers said before asking the panel to provide actionable advice for parents. These are their tips:

  • Be positive about your child’s tech use. Ask what they love online and let them be the expert. You might be surprised.
  • Walk the walk. Kids notice when parents scroll through dinner or check phones during bedtime stories.
  • Start with yourself. Before addressing your child’s screen use, examine what is driving your own fear.
  • Give teens a seat at the table. Involving young people in family tech conversations, and even school policy discussions, builds trust and better outcomes.
  • Put your phone to bed before your child. Guarantee them your full, undivided attention at the end of the day.
  • Remember Henderson’s reminder that “there’s no one-size-fits-all parenting.” Use the tools available on platforms like YouTube to set boundaries that reflect your family’s specific values, your child’s age and your own comfort level — not someone else’s rulebook.
  • Take May’s advice to heart: “Find your joy” and help your child find theirs. When children are deeply engaged in something that excites them, whether cooking, historical costuming or building communities around shared passions, screens become a springboard rather than an escape.
  • Forgive yourself. As Odgers put it: “So much of the time we look at the screen and think we can solve the problems our kids face there, but the solutions are much deeper.”

CERES also offers resources for parents, including:

The full panel discussion is available on YouTube. Videos and resources from other panels in the series can be found on the CERES website.

New diagnoses of cannabis use disorder (CUD) among adolescents climbing

 New diagnoses of cannabis use disorder (CUD) among adolescents in Northern California began climbing after recreational cannabis was legalized in California in 2016, reversing a steady decline in the three years prior, according to a new study published in the journal Addiction. The researchers say their findings call for disorder-level outcomes to be tracked alongside standard measures of use prevalence and frequency when evaluating the public health effects of cannabis legalization.

"Most surveys of adolescent cannabis use tell us how many teens have tried cannabis, but don’t tell us how many are developing a disorder that brings them into clinical care," said Alisa Padon, Ph.D., the lead author on the study and research director at Getting it Right from the Start, a project of the Public Health Institute. “The public health goal is to reduce the harms caused by cannabis use and we cannot reduce what we do not measure.”   

National surveys have shown that overall rates of teen cannabis use have stayed relatively flat for two decades. Those figures are often cited as evidence that legalization has not affected young people. However, research shows that the risk of developing CUD, a complex condition that involves a problematic pattern of cannabis use, rises sharply with more frequent use and with earlier age of first use. By tracking diagnoses over time rather than at a single point, the study makes visible a shift toward frequent and problematic use that national survey figures of cannabis use alone do not reveal.

Researchers analyzed six years of electronic health record data from 637,000 adolescents receiving care at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. The periods studied were before the 2016 ballot measure passed, between passage and implementation, and after recreational retail sales began, through early 2020. Using an interrupted time series design, they tested whether trends in new CUD diagnoses shifted across those policy periods. The cohort had a mean age of 14.1 years at baseline and was 50.9% male, 33.6% non-Hispanic White, 29.6% Hispanic, 17.1% non-Hispanic Asian, 8.0% non-Hispanic Black and 11.5% multiple, other, or unknown race and ethnicity. Average enrollment lasted 27.4 months, and the demographic makeup of the cohort was similar across time periods.

Key findings:

  • CUD diagnoses fell about 6% a year before the 2016 vote and rose about 8% a year after, a reversal of the prior trend.
  • The upward trend continued after recreational retail sales began.
  • By early 2020, more than three years after passage, diagnoses were back to their 2014 level.
  • Among the 637,461 adolescents studied, 8,804 were newly diagnosed with CUD over the six years.

The shift in CUD diagnosis began at passage of legalization rather than at the opening of retail stores, which the authors say may reflect changes in the broader legal and social environment around the vote. Passage reduced criminal penalties for cannabis offenses for juveniles, potentially altering how teens weighed the consequences of use. It may also have acted as a normative signal that cannabis is socially acceptable or low-risk, a message amplified by cannabis-related promotion around the 2016 ballot campaign. In addition, as the retail market matured, youth-appealing advertising, product variety and higher-potency THC products expanded, factors that can increase the likelihood of progression to frequent use.

“The new study shows that cannabis laws are tied to changes in young people's rates of cannabis use disorder,” said senior author Kelly Young-Wolff, PhD, MPH, a research scientist at the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research. “As potency has risen, it's more important than ever that families understand this is a product that can be addictive and, for some kids, requires real medical care.”

The pattern of CUD diagnosis the research team found echoes a companion study on adolescent self-reported cannabis use they published earlier this year in JAMA Network Open. The study found use was falling before California’s legalization, began climbing after the law passed but before retail stores opened and continued rising to a high of 9.5% in early 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic began. In 2024 adolescent use was at 6.5%—near where it stood just before legalization.

The new study has several limitations. The study population were adolescents insured through and seeking care at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, so results may not apply to teens in Southern California, other states or those who are uninsured. Because Proposition 64 took effect statewide, there was no comparison group of unexposed adolescents, and the single-group design cannot rule out unmeasured trends over the same years, including broader shifts in adolescent mental health, screening practices or health care use. The analysis was not preregistered, and the study period ended before the COVID-19 pandemic, limiting conclusions about longer-term trends.

Study:

Padon, AA, Cortez, CA, Alexeeff, SE, Slama, NE, Liccardo Pacula, R, Silver, LD, Sterling SA, Campbell CI, Satre DD, Does MB, Young-Wolff KC. Adolescent Cannabis Use Disorder Following Recreational Cannabis Legalization in California, USA: A Population-Based Interrupted Time Series Study. Addiction. 2026. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/add.70597