A Survey Exploring People's Experiences With Lithium Bought as a Supplement: Une enquête sur l’expérience des personnes avec le lithium en supplément
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Lithium, despite its evidence base and range of indications, is often underutilized due to safety concerns associated with high-dose prescriptions and consequent necessity for regular blood monitoring. Emerging evidence suggests its potential benefits at lower doses, especially for its pro-cognitive effects and positive safety profile. While accessible as a supplement, empirical human evidence on neuropsychiatric effects is lacking. This study aimed to provide preliminary evidence regarding the utilization and perceived effects of low-dose lithium supplements (LiS) in the community. METHODS: Cross-sectional, opportunistic survey of 211 participants aged ≥18 years who disclosed taking over-the-counter lithium supplements. The survey assessed sample demographics, supplement details, overall perspectives, and personal experiences related to the use of LiS. RESULTS: The most common form of LiS taken was aspartate at 10 mg once per day, although lithium orotate and ionic lithium were also frequently used. The most common beliefs regarding the benefits of using lithium as a supplement concern efficacy for anxiety, but the most common improvements experienced was in the domain of cognition, closely followed by anxiety and mood. Mood was most commonly reported as the greatest improvement. Side effects and withdrawal phenomena were more prevalent than anticipated. CONCLUSION: This study revealed a diverse range of lithium supplements taken, in terms of dosage, formulation, frequency, and duration of intake. Anecdotal evidence highlighted prevalent perceived benefits and adverse effects. The study is, however, limited notably by its cross-sectional opportunistic design; more robust evidence, especially from controlled trials, is needed to fully establish the specific benefits and drawbacks associated with different forms and doses of accessible lithium supplements.Plain Language Summary TitleA survey exploring people's experiences with lithium bought as a supplement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".