Effects of psychedelics on neurogenesis and brain plasticity: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the mammalian brain, new neurons continue to be generated throughout life in a process known as adult neurogenesis. The role of adult-generated neurons has been broadly studied across laboratories, and mounting evidence suggests a strong link to the HPA axis and concomitant malfunctions in patients diagnosed with mood disorders. Psychedelic compounds, such as phenethylamines, tryptamines, cannabinoids, and a variety of ever-growing chemical categories, have emerged as therapeutic options for neuropsychiatric disorders, while numerous reports link their effects to increased adult neurogenesis. In this systematic review, we examine studies assessing neurogenesis or neurogenesis-associated brain plasticity after psychedelic interventions and aim to provide a comprehensive picture of how this vast category of compounds regulates the generation of new neurons. We conducted a literature search on PubMed and Science Direct databases, considering all articles published until January 31, 2023, and selected articles containing both the terms "neurogenesis" and "psychedelics". We analyzed experimental studies using either in vivo or in vitro models, employing classical or atypical psychedelics at all ontogenetic windows, as well as human studies referring to neurogenesis-associated plasticity. Of a total of 205 articles, 68 met all the necessary conditions for further review. Our findings were divided into five main categories of psychedelics: CB1 agonists, NMDA antagonists, harmala alkaloids, tryptamines, and entactogens. We described the outcomes of neurogenesis assessments and investigated related results on the effects of psychedelics on brain plasticity and behavior within our sample. In summary, this review presents an extensive study into how different psychedelics may affect the birth of new neurons and other brain-related processes. Such knowledge may be valuable for future research on novel therapeutic strategies for neuropsychiatric disorders.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".