MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311477082 · doi:10.1177/02698811221131997

Risks and benefits of psilocybin use in people with bipolar disorder: An international web-based survey on experiences of ‘magic mushroom’ consumption

2022· article· en· W4311477082 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychopharmacology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychedelics and Drug Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsPsilocybinMushroomMushroom poisoningBipolar disorderPsychiatryWeb surveyMAGIC (telescope)PsychologyConsumption (sociology)HallucinogenClinical psychologyBusinessArtBiologyCognitionMarketingFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Psilocybin, the primary psychoactive component of psychedelic ‘magic mushrooms’, may have potential for treating depressive symptoms, and consequent applications for bipolar disorder (BD). Knowledge of the risks and benefits of psilocybin in BD is limited to case studies. Aim: To support the design of clinical trials, we surveyed experiences of psilocybin use in people with BD. Methods: An international web-based survey was used to explore experiences of psilocybin use in people with a self-reported diagnosis of BD. Quantitative findings were summarised using descriptive statistics. Qualitative content analysis was used to investigate free-text responses, with a focus on positive experiences of psilocybin use. Results: A total of 541 people completed the survey (46.4% female, mean 34.1 years old). One-third (32.2%; n = 174) of respondents described new/increasing symptoms after psilocybin trips, prominently manic symptoms, difficulties sleeping and anxiety. No differences in rates of adverse events overall were observed between individuals with BD I compared to BD II. Use of emergency medical services was rare ( n = 18; 3.3%), and respondents (even those who experienced adverse effects) indicated that psilocybin use was more helpful than harmful. Quantitative findings elaborated on perceived benefits, as well as the potential for psilocybin trips to contain both positively and negatively received elements. Conclusions: The subjective benefits of psilocybin use for mental health symptoms reported by survey participants encourage further investigation of psilocybin-based treatments for BD. Clinical trials should incorporate careful monitoring of symptoms, as data suggest that BD symptoms may emerge or intensify following psilocybin use.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.306 · 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