ArticlePsychopharmacology2022
Natural language signatures of psilocybin microdosing.
Article in Psychopharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psilocybin-assisted neurofeedback for the improvement of executive functions: a randomized semi-naturalistic-lab feasibility study.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Trial
- Psilocybin, From Ancestral Use to Therapeutic Potential: A Multidimensional Review of Its Pharmacological Basis and Current Perspectives.Human psychopharmacology · 2026Review
- Psilocybin: From Psychiatric Pariah to Perceived Panacea.The American journal of psychiatry · 2025Review
- Psilocybin-induced modulation of visual salience processing.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2025Article
- Is microdosing a placebo? A rapid review of low-dose LSD and psilocybin research.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleSerotonergic psychedelics are being studied as novel treatments for mental health disorders and as facilitators of improved well-being, mental function, and creativity. Recent studies have found mixed results concerning the effects of low doses of psychedelics ("microdosing") on these domains. However, microdosing is generally investigated using instruments designed to assess larger doses of psychedelics, which might lack sensitivity and specificity for this purpose.
objectivesDetermine whether unconstrained speech contains signatures capable of identifying the acute effects of psilocybin microdoses.
methodsNatural speech under psilocybin microdoses (0.5 g of psilocybin mushrooms) was acquired from thirty-four healthy adult volunteers (11 females: 32.09 ± 3.53 years; 23 males: 30.87 ± 4.64 years) following a double-blind and placebo-controlled experimental design with two measurement weeks per participant. On Wednesdays and Fridays of each week, participants consumed either the active dose (psilocybin) or the placebo (edible mushrooms). Features of interest were defined based on variables known to be affected by higher doses: verbosity, semantic variability, and sentiment scores. Machine learning models were used to discriminate between conditions. Classifiers were trained and tested using stratified cross-validation to compute the AUC and p-values.
resultsExcept for semantic variability, these metrics presented significant differences between a typical active microdose and the inactive placebo condition. Machine learning classifiers were capable of distinguishing between conditions with high accuracy (AUC [Formula: see text] 0.8).
conclusionsThese results constitute first evidence that low doses of serotonergic psychedelics can be identified from unconstrained natural speech, with potential for widely applicable, affordable, and ecologically valid monitoring of microdosing schedules.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.