The ketamine chameleon: history, pharmacology, and the contested value of experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Since its synthesis in 1962, ketamine has been widely used in diverse medical contexts, from anesthesia to treatment-resistant depression. However, interpretations of ketamine's subjective effects remain polarized. Biomedical frameworks typically construe the drug's experiential effects as dissociative or psychotomimetic, while psychedelic paradigms emphasize the potential therapeutic merits of these non-ordinary states. AREAS COVERED: Ketamine's psychoactive effects have inspired diverse interpretations. In this review, we trace the historical evolution of these perspectives - which we broadly categorize as 'dissociative,' 'dream-like,' and 'psychedelic' - and show how they emerged out of these clinical contexts. We highlight the influence of factors such as language, dose, and environmental context on ketamine's effects and therapeutic outcomes. We discuss potential mechanisms underlying these context-dependent effects and explore the broader clinical and research-related ramifications. EXPERT OPINION: Ketamine's subjective effects are undeniably powerful, yet their therapeutic significance remains debated. A nuanced, interdisciplinary approach is essential for maximizing ketamine's potential. Future research should focus on how explanatory models, treatment environments, and patient preparation can optimize ketamine's benefits while minimizing distress. We suggest that, rather than being a tiger to be tamed as its creator once described, ketamine may best be understood as a chameleon whose color shifts depending on its context.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".