Mechanisms of integration in psychedelic-assisted therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LAY SUMMARY Psychedelic pharmacotherapies combined with structured psychotherapy have shown promise in the treatment of several psychological conditions. This type of therapy is known as psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy (PAP) and includes three phases: preparation, in-session support, and integration. The purpose of this review was to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used psychedelics to treat a psychological condition and to summarize the literature on changes that may be associated with clinical outcomes, as measured with MRI and various psychologically based tools. Psychedelics were administered in 17 RCTs, and 16 of these did so within a PAP framework. A total of 19 studies were identified that looked at MRI or psychological outcomes during the integration phase. Changes in brain networks during integration were identified but were not consistent between studies because of small sample sizes and inconsistent methodology. Some evidence suggests that changes in the executive control network may occur after psychedelic administration. Psychological changes after psychedelic administration were related to cognitive flexibility and personality traits such as openness and neuroticism. Overall, studies in this field should be repeated with a greater number of participants and other MRI-based techniques.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".