Use of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide by Major Depression Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Renewed interest in the clinical potential of hallucinogens may lead people with depression to a generally more positive view of the use of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). Therefore, past-year LSD use among people with depression may be increasing in prevalence. Objective: To assess time trends in the prevalence of past-year nonmedical LSD use by past-year major depression status and the variation in this association by sociodemographic characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used pooled publicly available data from 478 492 adults aged 18 years or older who were administered the National Survey on Drug Use and Health from 2008 through 2019. Statistical analysis was conducted from December 2022 to June 2023. Main Outcome and Measures: Past-year major depression diagnoses per criteria from the DSM-IV were analyzed. Logistic regression models examined whether time trends in past-year nonmedical LSD use differed between adults with vs without past-year depression, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics. Secondary analyses examined whether the trends in LSD use by depression status differed between sociodemographic subgroups. Results: The analytic sample included 478 492 adults, of whom 51.8% were female, 56.1% were younger than 50 years, 11.7% were Black, 15.1% were Hispanic, 65.8% were White, and 7.5% were another race. Weighted interview response rates ranged from 64.9% to 75.6% during the study time frame. From 2008 to 2019, past-year use of LSD increased significantly more among adults with major depression (2008 prevalence, 0.5%; 2019 prevalence, 1.8%; prevalence difference [PD], 1.3% [95% CI, 1.0%-1.6%]) compared with adults without major depression (2008 prevalence, 0.2%; 2019 prevalence, 0.8%; PD, 0.6% [95% CI, 0.5%-0.7%]) (difference in difference, 0.8% [95% CI, 0.5%-1.1%]). This difference was particularly pronounced among young adults aged 34 years or younger (PD among those aged 18-25 years with depression, 3.3% [95% CI, 2.5%-4.2%]; PD among those aged 26-34 years with depression, 2.7% [95% CI, 1.6%-3.8%]) and individuals with incomes less than $75 000 per year (PD among those with income <$20 000, 1.9% [95% CI, 1.3%-2.6%]; PD among those with income $20 000-$49 999, 1.5% [95% CI, 1.0%-2.1%]; PD among those with income $50 000-$74 999, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.7%-2.0%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that, from 2008 to 2019, there was a disproportionate increase in the prevalence of past-year LSD use among US adults with past-year depression. Among those with depression, this increase was particularly strong among younger adults and those with lower household incomes. Among individuals with depression who also report LSD use, clinicians should discuss potential strategies for mitigating harm and maximizing benefits in medically unsupervised settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".