MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162519480 · doi:10.1503/jpn.120128

Single treatments that have lasting effects: some thoughts on the antidepressant effects of ketamine and botulinum toxin and the anxiolytic effect of psilocybin

2013· review· en· W2162519480 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Simon N. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychedelics and Drug Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsilocybinAntidepressantAnxiolyticKetamineAnxietyPsychologyBotulinum toxinAnimal models of depressionClinical trialPharmacologyMedicineHallucinogenAnesthesiaPsychiatryNeuroscienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent clinical trials suggest that 3 single biological treatments have effects that persist. Based on research showing that the muscles involved in facial expressions can feed back to influence mood, a single trial diminishing glabella frown lines with botulinum toxin demonstrated a significant antidepressant effect for 16 weeks. Based primarily on research with animal models of depression suggesting that glutamate may be involved in depression, the N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist ketamine has been tested in several trials. A single dose decreased depression for up to a week. The reported effects of the use of mushrooms containing psilocybin by a number of cultures around the world has stimulated several trials showing beneficial effects of a single dose of psilocybin for over a year in healthy people, and for up to 3 months in patients with anxiety disorders who have advanced cancer. This article discusses these studies, their rationale, their possible mechanisms of action, the future clinical research required to establish these therapies and the basic research required to optimize single treatments that have lasting effects.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.815

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicPsychedelics and Drug StudiesFrench-language works237,207