Who Keeps Using Lysergic Acid Diethylamide? Correlates of Past-Year Use in People Who Initiated Use at least Five Years Ago
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Little is known about the correlates of repeated non-medical lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) use. Therefore, we aimed to determine the prevalence and correlates of past-year LSD use among people aged 18 years and older in the United States who first used LSD at least 5 years ago. Materials and Methods: Using data from the 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, we examined the estimated weighted prevalence of past-year LSD use and explored potential demographic, psychosocial, and drug use correlates using univariable and multivariable modeling. Results: Among US adults who had initiated LSD use at least 5 years ago, 4.2% were estimated to have used LSD in the past year. Estimated past-year LSD use prevalence decreased with time since first use, dropping from 14.4% among those who first used LSD 5 years ago to 0.1% among those who first used LSD 46-50 years ago. On multivariable analysis, past-year LSD use was positively associated with being male, never having been married, living in poverty, having a higher level of education, lifetime stimulant use, being approached by a drug seller in the past 30 days, having ever sold illegal drugs, perceiving LSD as lower risk, perceiving LSD as more available, and having attempted suicide in the past year. Past-year LSD use was negatively associated with having children in the home, living in a small metropolitan area, and years since LSD use initiation. Conclusions: Past-year LSD use is infrequent among lifetime LSD users and appears to decline with time since the initiation of LSD use. Perceived risk (lower) and perceived availability (higher) of LSD were the factors associated with the largest adjusted odds ratios for past-year LSD use. Further research is needed to understand the infrequency of LSD use among lifetime LSD users and its public health implications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".