Critical appraisal of evidence supporting prescription of psychedelics from clinic websites in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychedelics, including ketamine, 3,4-Methyl enedioxy methamphetamine (MDMA), and psilocybin, have gained attention for their potential therapeutic role in mental health treatment. While recreational use is prohibited in Canada, medicinal exemptions can be granted. There are several psychedelic clinics in Ontario, Canada, promoting the use of psychedelics for a variety of medical indications. Our objective was to identify the indications for which psychedelics are being prescribed in Ontario clinics and assess the quality of evidence used to support these claims. Internet searches were conducted using Google and Bing to identify psychedelic clinics in Ontario. Inclusion criteria was as follow: clinics were physically located in Ontario, had a functioning website link, and demonstrated involvement of a licensed physician or nurse practitioner. Identified clinics were evaluated for their claims of effectiveness, the quality of evidence used to support these claims, and statements on psychedelic-related harms. The cited studies were appraised for quality using Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence, "level 5" being the lowest quality and "level 1" being the highest quality. Out of 200 search results, 10 psychedelic clinic websites met our inclusion criteria. These clinics advertised psychedelics for 47 medical conditions, most commonly for depression. Only 2 out of 10 clinics described potential risks associated with psychedelic use. There were 29 studies cited by these websites, majority coming from "level 4" evidence consisting of case-series and case-control studies. Overall, the cited evidence quality was low to moderate. Psychedelic clinics in Ontario promote a wide range of medical indications for psychedelics using primarily low to moderate "level 4" evidence. There is limited information shared on the potential adverse effects of psychedelics. Our study emphasizes the importance of using transparent and high-quality evidence by clinics and clinicians to ensure safe and effective use of psychedelics in mental health treatments.
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 | 0.049 | 0.249 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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; 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".