Neurobiology of psilocybin: a comprehensive overview and comparative analysis of experimental models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psilocybin, a compound found in Psilocybe mushrooms, is emerging as a promising treatment for neurodegenerative and psychiatric disorders, including major depressive disorder. Its potential therapeutic effects stem from promoting neuroprotection, neurogenesis, and neuroplasticity, key factors in brain health. Psilocybin could help combat mild neurodegeneration by increasing synaptic density and supporting neuronal growth. With low risk for addiction and adverse effects, it presents a safe option for long-term use, setting it apart from traditional treatments. Despite their relatively simpler neuronal networks, studies using animal models, such as Drosophila and fish, have provided essential insights on the efficacy and mechanism of action of psilocybin. These models provide foundational information that guides more focused investigations, facilitating high-throughput screening, enabling researchers to quickly explore the compound’s effects on neural development, behavior, and underlying genetic pathways. While mammalian models are indispensable for comprehensive studies on psilocybin’s pharmacokinetics and its nuanced interactions within the complex nervous systems, small non-mammalian models remain valuable for identifying promising targets and mechanisms at early research stages. Together, these animal systems offer a complementary approach to drive rapid hypothesis generation to refine our understanding of psilocybin as a candidate for not only halting but potentially reversing neurodegenerative processes. This integrative strategy highlights the transformative potential of psilocybin in addressing neurodegenerative disorders, leveraging both small and mammalian models to achieve translational research success.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".