The Effects of Microdosing LSD on Behaviour in Zebrafish (Danio rerio)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of LSD for different forms of mental health treatment of has begun to increase. Therefore, there is a need for scientific evidence as to the effectiveness of this drug. Previous research using the Zebrafish has shown that low doses (5-100 µg/l) had little to no effects on the behaviour of the fish. In this study we used a camera-based video tracking software system to record and analyze the movement patterns of zebrafish after repeated LSD exposure and after 7 days of withdrawal. We used 30-minute small doses (1.5 µg/l, 15 µg/l, 150 µg/l, and control) for a duration of 10 days. and a withdrawal period for 7 days after the final dose of the fish. Testing occurred after 10 days of repeated dosing and again after withdrawal. The open-field and novel object approach tests were used as they are established anxiety-like behaviour paradigms. There was no significant difference to the levels of anxiety within any of the fish after their dosing cycle. There was a significant difference in anxiety-like behaviour after the withdrawal period. These results show that there is likely no or very little effects on anxiety with microdosing at the doses used after 10 days, but there is a possibility of a withdrawal effect. Department: Psychology Faculty Mentor: Dr. Trevor Hamilton
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".