MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416844791 · doi:10.52734/hgsn7664

Persistent Altered States: Psychological Treatment of Psychedelic Adverse Effects

2025· article· nb· W4416844791 on OpenAlexaff
Bjørn Holmøy, Kristoffer Andreas Aamodt Andersen

Bibliographic record

VenueTidsskrift for Norsk psykologforening · 2025
Typearticle
Languagenb
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychedelics and Drug Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyFeelingExistentialismContext (archaeology)Adverse effectMental healthNarrativePhenomenology (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interest and use of psychedelic substances is on the rise in the general population. Research has mainly focused on therapeutic applications in formal treatment settings, and little is known about persistent negative effects in naturalistic use. The aim of this paper is to present a clinically relevant overview of the phenomenology and symptoms of enduring mental health problems after psychedelic use. Three central domains of post-psychedelic difficulties are presented, informed by clinical work on this subgroup and a narrative literature review: (a) anxiety and feelings of unreality, (b) persistent changes in perception, and (c) existential distress. These are broad groupings and intended as suggestive rather than authoritative on the breadth and nature of complications after recreational psychedelic use. Challenges and recommendations for psychotherapeutic work with this subgroup is discussed in the context of principles for evidence-based practice. Keywords: psychedelics, negative effects, adverse reactions, HPPD, existential distress

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueTidsskrift for Norsk psykologforeningSame topicPsychedelics and Drug StudiesFrench-language works237,207