Bibliographic record
Abstract
For 3000 years, psychedelics have been used in religious contexts to enhance spiritual thinking, well-being, and a sense of community. In the last few years, a renaissance in the use of psychedelic drugs for mental disorders has occurred in Western society; consequently, a pressing scientific need to elucidate the intricate mechanisms underlying their actions has arisen. Psychedelics mainly bind to serotonin (5-HT) receptors, particularly 5-HT 2A receptors, but may also bind to other receptors. Unlike conventional psychotropic drugs used in psychiatry, psychedelics introduce a distinctive complexity. They not only engage in receptor activation, but also exert influence over specific neural circuits, thereby facilitating transformative cognitive experiences and fostering what many have identified as a spiritual contemplation or mystical experience. This comprehensive review describes clinical studies that have examined the propensity of psychedelics to enhance spiritual, mystical, and transcendent cognitive states. This multifaceted nature, encompassing diverse components and paradigms, necessitates careful consideration during the investigation of psychedelic mechanisms of action to avoid oversimplification. The present review endeavours to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the actions of 2 principal psychedelic substances, psilocybin and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), with a focus on monoamine and glutamate receptor mechanisms; molecular aspects, such as neuroplasticity and epigenetics; as well as the impact of psychedelics on brain circuits, including the default mode network and the cortico–striato–thalamo–cortical network. Given their distinctive and intricate mechanisms of action, psychedelics necessitate a novel conceptual framework in psychiatry, offering insight into the treatment of mental health disorders and facilitating the integration of the realms of brain, mind, and spirituality.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.367 | 0.142 |
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".