Global Trends in Psychedelic Microdosing: Demographics, Substance Testing Behavior, and Patterns of Use
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
Despite psychedelic microdosing being a growing practice, the research on the topic is still in its infancy. While several studies have described the characteristics, motivations and practices of microdosers, the differences between individuals that only microdose and those that use both micro and macrodoses of psychedelics remain unexplored. In an online survey, we collected data of 6193 psychedelic consumers of which 2488 were microdosers of up to 11 different classical and atypical psychedelics. In comparison to respondents that use both microdoses and macrodoses, exclusive microdosers were older in age (46.4 vs. 42.0 years), had a larger proportion of females (68.4% vs. 44.7%), were non-Caucasian (25.4% vs. 14.7%), urban residents (43.9% vs. 38.5%), and had a lower average lifetime use of non-psychedelic substances (3.8 vs. 4.7 substances). Most consumers (52.5%) microdosed psychedelics multiple times a month, commonly using psilocybin (74.5%), LSD (34.4%), and ketamine (15.8%), with most users (64.6%) not testing their substances. The most common reason for microdosing was improving general wellbeing (73.0%), and psychedelics were used for treating several physical and mental health conditions. Additional analyses examined spending habits of consumers. This study adds to the growing literature on the naturalistic use of psychedelic microdosers.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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