MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390656905 · doi:10.1101/2024.01.04.574146

Behavioural Investigations of Psilocybin in Animals 1962-2021: A Scoping Review

2024· review· en· W4390656905 on OpenAlexafffund
Ron Shore, K. Dobson, Nina Thomson, Nigel Barnim, Hailey Bergman, Katie Rideout, Sandra McKeown, Mary C. Olmstead, Craig Goldie, Éric C. Dumont

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychedelics and Drug Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersQueen's University
KeywordsPsilocybinGrey literaturePsychologySystematic reviewMedicineMEDLINEHallucinogenPsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and Aims Psilocybin is a psychedelic drug that may hold promise for a wide range of human health conditions, yet the identification of therapeutic processes and mechanisms of action remains exploratory. We conducted a scoping review on pre-clinical behavioural investigations of psilocybin in non-human animals to help determine the behavioural effects of psilocybin in non-human animals, to identify studies completed, behavioural tests employed, and what dosing modalities had been studied. Methods A librarian-conducted literature search was performed using predefined key terms and search criteria and additional searching was conducted by reviewers, using electronic databases, grey literature sources, and reference lists of relevant articles or reviews. The final search updated occurred in October, 2021. Studies were reviewed, screened and selected against an a priori protocol using Covidence software by multiple reviewers with results plotted across the Research Domains Criteria construct. Results From 4124 records identified by database searching, 260 publications were subjected to full-text review with 77 studies included in this scoping review, published between 1962-2021. The preponderance of studies (n=64) investigated behavioural outcomes in rodents. Only 43 studies (55.8%) reported on housing conditions, and seventeen studies (22.1%) failed to report sample size. All studies reported behavioural outcomes following drug administration, with fifty-one studies (66.2%) using psilocybin, thirty studies (42.9%) psilocin, four studies (5.2%) administering whole mushroom extracts (WME), and a further eight studies investigating both psilocybin and psilocin and one study reporting the effects of both psilocin and WME. One hundred and thirty distinct behavioural investigations using fifty different behavioral paradigms were identified. Few adverse events were reported, and even exceedingly high doses were apparently well tolerated. Conclusion With seventy-seven publications spanning close to sixty years, there is huge variation in study design and quality. Overall psilocybin presents a unique and strong safety profile with no evidence of biological toxicity, is characterized by unique time and dose-dependent effects, and its pattern of drug action is significantly context and training-sensitive. Data suggest putative effects of psilocybin include acute arousal, dose-dependent sedation, reductions in fear conditioning at low doses, reduced aggression, improved valence, acute disruption of working memory, the rescuing of deficits from chronic stress, and improved learning when combined with repeated environmental exposure after resolution of drug effect.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicPsychedelics and Drug StudiesFrench-language works237,207