Reconsidering evidence for psychedelic-induced psychosis: an overview of reviews, a systematic review, and meta-analysis of human studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persons with schizophrenia are excluded from psychedelic-assisted therapy due to concerns about the risk of triggering or worsening psychosis. However, there is limited meta-analytic data on the risk of psychedelic-induced psychosis in individuals with pre-existing psychotic disorders. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis, and overview of reviews to assess the incidence of psychedelic-induced psychosis and symptom exacerbation in schizophrenia. Our pre-registered protocol (CRD42023399591) covered: LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, DMT, and MDMA, using data from Embase, PubMed, PsyARTICLES, PsyINFO, and trial registries up to November 2023. A random-effects model was used to calculate psychosis incidence, with standardized assessments of study quality. RESULTS: From 131 publications, we analyzed 14 systematic reviews, 20 reviews, 35 randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), 10 case-control studies, 30 uncontrolled trials (UCTs), and 22 cohort studies, most of which were low quality. Meta-analysis of nine studies showed an incidence of psychedelic-induced psychosis at 0.002% in population studies, 0.2% in UCTs, and 0.6% in RCTs. In UCTs including individuals with schizophrenia, 3.8% developed long-lasting psychotic symptoms. Of those with psychedelic-induced psychosis, 13.1% later developed schizophrenia. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the results. CONCLUSION: In summary, the reviewed evidence suggests that schizophrenia might not be a definite exclusion criterion for clinical trials exploring safety and efficacy of psychedelics for treatment-resistant depression and negative symptoms. However, given the low quality and limited number of studies, more high-quality research is needed, and a conservative approach is recommended until further data is available.
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 | 0.053 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".