>"Heavy and chronic cannabis usage has been linked to an increase in density, but a reduction in total volume, which resulted in a slight overall decrease in IQ."
I wouldn't put much stock into these type of non-quantitative explanations wherein "this makes that go up which makes this go down", etc.
Usually the researchers measure a bunch of different things, analyze the data in a bunch of different ways, and only publish whatever is "significant". This works at the single lab level and multi-lab level since the "non-significant" results are considered boring and don't get published. By "usually" I mean this is standard behavior. You can call it p-hacking, file drawer effect, and more recently "forking paths":
http://andrewgelman.com/2017/12/29/forking-paths-plus-lack-t...
>"Cognitive function is affected by a variety of parameters and we got more neuroscience to do still."
Sure, that was the case before these studies were done too though.