Altered stakes: Identifying gaps in the informed consent process for psychedelic-assisted therapy trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and aims Psychedelic-assisted therapy (P-AT) has been shown to reduce post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety symptoms, and is likely to be approved in the United States (US) in the coming years. However, concerns about participant safety in these early trials have surfaced, including allegations of sexual misconduct. This paper aims to illuminate how potential risks have been communicated to P-AT participants via informed consent documents and to suggest how existing policy might be modified given the unique risks involved in P-AT trials. Methods Publicly available informed consent forms (ICFs) were gathered by searching clinicaltrials.gov . Queries were applied to filter trials involving the use of a classical psychedelic (psilocybin, LSD) or psychedelic-adjacent substance (MDMA, ketamine) in tandem with psychotherapeutic intervention and those with a status of “completed,” “recruiting,” or “active.” Results Nineteen ICFs met inclusion criteria and were reviewed to determine what risks, benefits, and safety protocols were communicated to participants in their respective trials. The primary finding from this review of ICFs from P-AT trials revealed that studies were in compliance with federal regulation. However, there were missing elements related to the vulnerability experienced while under the effects of psychedelics that warrant inclusion in future ICFs in P-AT trials. Conclusion Although the ICFs for P-AT trials examined in this study covered several important areas related to risk, benefits, safety, and accountability as required by federal regulations in the US, future research should consider ways to expand this content in order to assure that consent is truly informed prior to enrolling subjects.
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 | 0.876 | 0.919 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
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".