Non-hallucinogenic psychedelics for mood and anxiety disorders: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychedelics have re-emerged as promising treatments for mood disorders. The current model provides a moderate-to-high dose of a psychedelic agent (e.g., psilocybin) to reliably induce an altered state of consciousness. Unfortunately, the hallucinatory effects limit the treatment's potential scalability given patients' vulnerability and extensive monitoring costs, leading to growing interest in non-hallucinatory psychedelics (NHPs). This review's objective was to identify, summarize and synthesize all published pre-clinical and clinical studies evaluating NHPs for mood and anxiety disorders. We included five animal studies demonstrating antidepressant-like effects through assessments like forced swim test (FST) and open field test (OFT) without observing head-twitch response (HTR), and one case report that identified a patient who inadvertently combined trazodone and psilocybin and experienced potent antidepressant effects without psychedelic effects. These preliminary findings provide a strong impetus for further investigation in human samples with rigorously designed clinical trials that may delineate the potential antidepressant effects of psychedelics without hallucinatory effects.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".