Psychedelic medicine at a crossroads: Advancing an integrative approach to research and practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychedelics have been already used by human societies for more than 3000 years, mostly in religious and healing context. The renewed interest in the potential application of psychedelic compounds as novel therapeutics has led to promising preliminary evidence of clinical benefit in some psychiatric disorders. Despite these promising results, the potential for large-scale clinical application of these profoundly consciousness-altering substances, in isolation from the sociocultural contexts in which they were traditionally used, raises important concerns. These concerns stem from the recognition that the mechanisms of therapeutic action of psychedelics are not entirely dependent on neurobiology, but also on the psychological, social and spiritual processes for their efficacy. For these reasons, physicians or psychotherapists involved in psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy need training in ways to accompany patients through this experience to promote positive outcomes and address potential side effects. Psychedelic therapies may foster the emergence of a novel paradigm in psychiatry that integrates psychopharmacological, psychotherapeutic, and cultural interventions for patients with mental health issues.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".