Investigating the impact of psychedelic drugs on social cognition defects: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Impairments in social cognition are known to be a key factor in several psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders. Interest in psychedelic drugs has increased in recent years, with significant research identifying psychedelic and hallucinogenic drugs as modulators of social cognition. However, more research is necessary before psychedelics are implemented in clinical settings as treatments for social cognition defects. Therefore, this study describes a scoping review protocol which will be used to analyze the body of literature on psychedelic drugs as modulators of social cognition in patients with psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders. METHODS: This scoping review protocol was developed using the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group's description of how to conduct a scoping review. The guidelines identified by this group as well as a search strategy developed with the assistance of a research librarian will be applied to a search of several peer-reviewed journals, including MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO, EMBASE (Elsevier), and Scopus (Elsevier). Each study extracted will be screened in a two-step screening process, including a title and abstract screen, and a full-text screen. One independent individual will complete both steps of the screening, and a second independent individual will review the completed screening. DISCUSSION: An understanding of the current literature on psychedelic drugs as modulators of social cognition will provide insight into what is presently known on the subject, and any gaps in the literature that can be addressed in future studies. The knowledge gained from this scoping review could lead to a new treatment for social cognition defects in clinical populations.
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 | 0.138 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.016 |
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".