A Phase I trial to inform clinical protocols for the safe administration of psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This Phase I trial aims to inform the development of safety protocols for psilocybin-assisted therapy. Psychedelics, including psilocybin, are increasingly being recognized as a successful treatment option for many mental health concerns. In order to decrease the risks associated with its clinical use, more data is required regarding its physiological effects in healthy individuals. Safety assessments (heart rate, blood pressure, temperature, and ECG data), as well as adverse event evaluations were the primary outcome measures used to assess the physiological effects of 25 mg of psilocybin extract administered to 14 healthy individuals. We hypothesized that there would be a transient, clinically insignificant rise in both blood pressure and heart rate that would not result in any long-term adverse effects. No unexpected effects were observed, blood pressure and heart rate returned to normal as drug effects waned, and all participants had normal two-month follow-ups. Mean peak systolic and diastolic blood pressures during the psilocybin session were 145.93 ( SD = 19.01) and 93.93 ( SD = 9.75), respectively. While this represents a significant increase from baseline ( p < 0.0001), a healthy cardiovascular system is capable of tolerating such levels for a longer time period than the brief duration of drug effects. Therefore, we suggest implementing focused and limited screening protocols to balance patient safety and accessibility. Secondary outcomes of this trial centered on the subjective effects of psilocybin, assessed via the QIDS-SR16 and the MEQ-30. There was a statistically significant decrease in QIDS-SR16 scores from baseline scores ( M = 3.50, SD = 2.35) to eight-week follow-up scores ( M = 1.86, SD = 0.86), p = 0.018. Mean MEQ-30 scores, assessed on day two and seven after the psilocybin session, indicate participants had full mystical experiences.
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".