Use of Psychedelics for Pain: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic pain is a public health concern that affects approximately 1.5 billion people globally. Conventional therapeutic agents including opioid and non-opioid analgesics have been associated with adverse side effects, issues with addiction, and ineffective analgesia. Novel agents repurposed to treat pain via different mechanisms are needed to fill the therapeutic gap in chronic pain management. Psychedelics such as lysergic acid diethylamide and psilocybin (the active ingredient in psychedelic mushrooms) are thought to alter pain perception through direct serotonin receptor agonism, anti-inflammatory effects, and synaptic remodeling. This scoping review was conducted to identify human studies in which psychedelic agents were used for the treatment of pain. Twenty-one articles that assessed the effects of psychedelics in treating various pain states were included. The present scarcity of clinical trials and small sample sizes limit their application for clinical use. Overall, psychedelics appear to show promise for analgesia in patients with certain headache disorders and cancer pain diagnoses. Future studies must aim to examine the combined effects of psychotherapy and psychedelics on chronic pain.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".