MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effect of psychedelic microdosing on animal behavior: A review with recommendations for the field

2025· review· en· W4410237490 on OpenAlexaff
Omer A. Syed, Rotem Petranker, Benjamin Tsang

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychedelics and Drug Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAnimal testingPharmacologyMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microdosing, the repeated use of psychedelic substances at low doses, is growing in popularity among recreational consumers. While this practice is associated with many benefits to mood, well-being and health, research in this area is in its early stages and predominantly centered on human applications. In this narrative review, we synthesize the findings from studies investigating the effects of microdosing on the behaviors of three animal species: rats, mice, and zebrafish. A total of 12 studies were identified that implemented a microdosing regimen of LSD, psilocybin, or DMT in these animal models. Overall, microdosing caused little changes in behaviors associated with anxiety- and depressive-like states. Moreover, while microdosing was well-tolerated across species, further research is needed to capture specific safety concerns. Finally, we critically appraise the studies included in this review based on their methodologies and discuss further avenues of research to advance the preclinical literature on psychedelic microdosing. Specifically, we recommend that future research prioritize the replication of existing findings to inform the development of robust study designs and dosing protocols, as well as establish standardized methodologies to enable effective comparisons across different animal models. Furthermore, future investigations should explore the therapeutic potential of mescaline microdosing, examine sex-dependent effects, and extend research to additional models of psychiatric conditions, including those related to obsessive-compulsive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.176
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroscience & Biobehavioral ReviewsSame topicPsychedelics and Drug StudiesFrench-language works237,207