High dose of psilocybin induces acute behavioral changes without inducing conditioned place preference in Sprague-Dawley rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been a resurgence of scientific interest in psychedelics, including psilocybin, for their potential in treating neuropsychiatric disorders. However, the reward-related effects of psilocybin and its impact on behavior remain underexplored. AIMS: We aimed to evaluate the potential rewarding effects of high doses of psilocybin and its effects on rat behavior. METHODS: Sprague-Dawley rats were exposed to the conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm. Over an 8-day period, rats were administered either psilocybin (10 mg/kg, i.p.) or vehicle (0.9% saline, i.p.) on odd conditioning days, while receiving vehicle (0.9% saline, i.p.) on even conditioning days. The potential rewarding effect induced by psilocybin was assessed 48 hours after the last psilocybin injection. Behavioral assessments, including head twitch, body shaking, grooming, body licking, defecation pellets, and rearing, were conducted during the CPP exposure. RESULTS: Psilocybin did not induce CPP in rats, highlighting its lack of reinforcing effects under these conditions. However, this regimen of administration led to modifications in the behavioral profile during CPP test by increasing head twitching, wet-wet-dog shaking, and defecation pellets and decreasing grooming, body licking, and rearing compared to the vehicle group. Importantly, 48 hours after the final psilocybin injection, no behavioral differences were observed between psilocybin and vehicle groups. CONCLUSION: Psilocybin at this regimen (10 mg/kg, every other day) does not induce CPP, but induces changes in behavior, which disappear 48 hours after the last injection. More research is needed to better evaluate the addiction liability of psychedelics using different paradigms, doses, and protocols.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".