Repeated microdoses of LSD do not alter anxiety or boldness in zebrafish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The therapeutic use of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) has resurfaced in the last decade, prompting further scientific investigation into its effectiveness in many animal models. Zebrafish (Danio rerio) are a popular model organism in medical sciences and are used to examine the repeated administration of pharmacological compounds. Previous zebrafish research found acute LSD altered behaviour and cortisol levels at high (250 µg/L) but not low (5-100 µg/L) levels. In this study, we used a motion tracking system to record and analyze the movement patterns of zebrafish after acute and repeated 10-day LSD exposure (1.5 µg/L, 15 µg/L, 150 µg/L) and after seven days of withdrawal. The open-field and novel object approach tests were used to examine anxiety-like behaviour, boldness, and locomotion. In the acute experiments we observed a significant decrease in high mobility with 1.5 µg/L, 15 µg/L, and 150 µg/L of LSD compared to the control and a decrease in velocity with 1.5 and 15 µg/L. In repeated experiments, there were no significant differences in the levels of anxiety, boldness, or locomotion between all LSD groups and controls immediately after 10-day treatment or after withdrawal.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".