Hospital-based care for hallucinogens and risk of mania and bipolar disorder: A population-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hallucinogen use for both recreational and medical purposes is rapidly increasing globally, raising concerns about potential adverse effects. This study examined the risk of incident mania or bipolar disorder (BD) diagnosis associated with having an emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalization involving hallucinogens. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a population-based cohort study of all individuals aged 14-65 years with no baseline history of BD and registered in the Ontario Health Insurance Plan in Ontario, Canada, between 2008-2022. Incident mania (primary outcome) and incident BD (secondary outcome) were compared between individuals with acute care (an ED visit or hospitalization) involving hallucinogens and the general population using overlap propensity score weighted Cox proportional hazard models. Models were adjusted for age, sex, rural residence, income quintile, recent documentation of homelessness, and healthcare encounters for mental health or other substance use in the past five years. The study included 9,311,844 individuals of which 7,285 (0.08%) had acute care involving hallucinogens. Within 3-years of acute care involving hallucinogens, 1.43% (n = 104) of individuals had an incident episode of mania requiring acute care compared to 0.06% (n = 41) of individuals in the age-sex matched general population, a 25-fold increase in risk. After weighting, acute care for hallucinogens was associated with a 6-fold (weighted Hazard Ratio [HR] 5.97, 95% CI 3.29, 10.82) increase in risk of incident mania relative to individuals without hallucinogen acute care who had otherwise similar demographic and mental health histories. Associated increases were also observed for risk of an incident diagnosis of BD (HR 3.75 95%CI 2.49, 5.65, absolute proportion 2.50% versus 0.11%). The main limitation of the study is the risk associated with the exposure examined in this study may not generalize to the majority of people who use hallucinogens who do not require acute care. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest the need for ongoing caution regarding hallucinogen use in individuals at risk of bipolar disorder. They also have potential implications for clinical practice, research, and public health policy, including substance regulation and targeted education for high-risk groups in the context of rising hallucinogen use.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".