Psychedelics and the ‘inner healer’: Myth or mechanism?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reference to an intrinsic healing mechanism or an 'inner healer' is commonplace amongst psychedelic drug-using cultures. The 'inner healer' refers to the belief that psychedelic compounds, plants or concoctions have an intrinsically regenerative action on the mind and brain, analogous to intrinsic healing mechanisms within the physical body, for example, after sickness or injury. AIMS: Here, we sought to test and critique this idea by devising a single subjective rating item pertaining to perceived 'inner healing' effects. METHODS: = 29) dose of psilocybin in a double-blind randomised controlled trial of psilocybin for depression. RESULTS: < 0.001). Within the high-dose sub-sample only, inner healer scores predicted improved depressive symptomatology at 2 weeks post-dosing. CONCLUSIONS: The principle of activating inner healing mechanisms via psychedelics is scientifically nascent; however, this study takes a positivist and pragmatic step forward, asking whether it warrants further examination.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".