The influence of stakeholder interests on safety outcome reporting in psychedelic research and implications for science communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychedelics are a group of psychoactive substances that produce complex and subjective changes to consciousness and carry unique safety considerations. There is a growing body of work investigating the use of psychedelics in mental health treatment alongside increasing socio-cultural and political acceptance. This rapid evolution has prompted corporations to fund psychedelic clinical trials, leading to a potential rise in conflicts of interest in relevant studies and publications. However, the body of evidence for the safety and efficacy of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy is early. There is concern regarding the introduction of bias in psychedelic clinical trials and the selective reporting of results amidst and beyond corporate involvement. At a crucial time in psychedelic drug reform, this paper explores the safety concerns associated with psychedelics, the potential influences of financial stakeholders on safety outcome reporting and the importance of balanced science communication in maintaining public health and safety.
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 | 0.795 | 0.911 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".