Mechanisms of integration in psychedelic-assisted therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In recent clinical trials, psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy (PAP) led to symptomatic improvement among people with several psychiatric conditions. PAP has three distinct phases: preparation, support during psychedelic administration, and integration. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify randomized controlled trials that used PAP and synthesize the research base related to neuronal networks and neural function as measured with neuroimaging during the integration period and to link these findings to psychological changes after PAP. Methods: PubMed and ProQuest databases were searched using key words. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to determine whether an article would be reviewed. The authors specifically focused on articles that used neuroimaging or reported a psychological outcome one day or more after psychedelic administration. Results: Most articles used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and, in particular, resting-state fMRI to assess functional connectivity. Results generally reported changes in higher-order networks, although the direction of change in strength of connectivity was variable. Themes related to psychological findings were linked to increases in psychological and cognitive flexibility, increased openness, and decreased neuroticism after psychedelic treatment. Discussion: In general, more consistent methodology across the field should be applied to make progress in understanding network-based changes underlying clinical improvements after PAP. Limited evidence suggests that changes in the executive control network, and in its integration with other networks, may result in greater cognitive flexibility during the integration period.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".