Microdosing with classical psychedelics: Research trajectories and practical considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microdosing-the intermittent ingestion of minute, sub-hallucinogenic amounts of psychedelic substances, repeatedly and over time-has become a widespread, albeit largely understudied, phenomenon. Regulations around using psychedelics at any dose-micro, mini, macro, or mega-pose all sorts of difficulties for those who wish to systematically study the effects of Schedule I drugs, especially in the United States. Microdosers commonly claim that taking a sub-hallucinogenic (pre-hallucinogenic or sub-perceptual) dose improves higher brain functions, including creativity, productivity, and mood. If true, these results would provide an important experimental edge in distinguishing psychosocial effects (e.g. caused by expectation) from those related to the active psychedelic ingredient. In this critical integrative synthesis, we explore the psychobiological science of dose amounts and how it informs microdosing with classical psychedelics (e.g. lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD] and psilocybin) to highlight and fuel research into questions (e.g. in cognitive neuroscience, consciousness studies, and metacognition). We sketch the hurdle-laden regulatory landscape and the procedures that shroud research with Schedule I drugs. Finally, we offer some future directions relevant to both scholars and clinicians in the social and behavioral sciences as well as in mental health and neurological science.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".