Impact of psilocybin on cognitive function: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psilocybin is a classic psychedelic with demonstrated preliminary clinical efficacy in a range of psychiatric disorders. Evaluating the impact of psilocybin on cognitive function is essential to unravel its potential benefits and risks. In this systematic review, we assessed psilocybin's effect on cognitive function through a comprehensive search of electronic databases from inception to January 2024, identifying 20 articles involving 2,959 participants. While 85% of studies were conducted in healthy volunteers, most of these studies (85%) used macrodoses, ranging from 45 μg/kg to 30 mg/70 kg. Various cognitive aspects were evaluated and yielded mixed results. Global cognitive function, and processing speed remained mostly unchanged in healthy individuals; However, a limited number of studies reported improvements in certain areas such as sustained attention, working memory, and executive function especially in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Emotional processing was positively modified, particularly in TRD patients. Psilocybin was observed to enhance emotional empathy without significantly altering cognitive empathy and social cognition. Cognitive flexibility and creative cognition were noted to initially decline but could potentially improve over time. Additionally, with respect to learning and memory skills, psilocybin showed promise in improving specific memory types such as semantic associations and associative learning, while its effects on episodic and verbal memory have been less pronounced compared to other cognitive enhancers. The observed mixed findings underscore the complexity of psilocybin's cognitive influence. Further research is essential to provide a clearer understanding of psilocybin's impact on cognitive domains and to guide the development of safe and effective interventions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it