Beyond ecstasy: Alternative entactogens to 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine with potential applications in psychotherapy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last two decades have seen a revival of interest in the entactogen 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine (MDMA) as an adjunct to psychotherapy, particularly for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. While clinical results are highly promising, and MDMA is expected to be approved as a treatment in the near future, it is currently the only compound in its class of action that is being actively investigated as a medicine. This lack of alternatives to MDMA may prove detrimental to patients who do not respond well to the particular mechanism of action of MDMA or whose treatment calls for a modification of MDMA's effects. For instance, patients with existing cardiovascular conditions or with a prolonged history of stimulant drug use may not fit into the current model of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy, and could benefit from alternative drugs. This review examines the existing literature on a host of entactogenic drugs, which may prove to be useful alternatives in the future, paying particularly close attention to any neurotoxic risks, neuropharmacological mechanism of action and entactogenic commonalities with MDMA. The substances examined derive from the 1,3-benzodioxole, cathinone, benzofuran, aminoindane, indole and amphetamine classes. Several compounds from these classes are identified as potential alternatives to MDMA.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it