Classic psychedelics: An integrative review of epidemiology, therapeutics, mystical experience, and brain network function
This comprehensive review (2019) by some of the leading researchers in psychedelics looks at both the epidemiological & clinical studies and the positive (and negative) effect that psychedelics can have.
Authors
- Peter Hendricks
- Roland Griffiths
- Matthew Johnson
Published
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to provide an integrative review and offer novel insights regarding human research with classic psychedelics (classic hallucinogens), which are serotonin 2A receptor (5-HT2AR) agonists such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), mescaline, and psilocybin. Classic psychedelics have been administered as sacraments since ancient times. They were of prominent interest within psychiatry and neuroscience in the 1950s to 1960s, and during this time contributed to the emergence of the field of molecular neuroscience. Promising results were reported for treatment of both end-of-life psychological distress and addiction, and classic psychedelics served as tools for studying the neurobiological bases of psychological disorders. Moreover, classic psychedelics were shown to occasion mystical experiences, which are subjective experiences reported throughout different cultures and religions involving a strong sense of unity, among other characteristics. However, the recreational use of classic psychedelics and their association with the counterculture prompted an end to human research with classic psychedelics in the early 1970s. We provide the most comprehensive review of epidemiological studies of classic psychedelics to date. Notable among these are a number of studies that have suggested the possibility that nonmedical naturalistic (non-laboratory) use of classic psychedelics is associated with positive mental health and prosocial outcomes, although it is clear that some individuals are harmed by classic psychedelics in non-supervised settings. We then review recent therapeutic studies suggesting efficacy in treating psychological distress associated with life-threatening diseases, treating depression, and treating nicotine and alcohol addictions. We also describe the construct of mystical experience, and provide a comprehensive review of modern studies investigating classic psychedelic-occasioned mystical experiences and their consequences. These studies have shown classic psychedelics to fairly reliably occasion mystical experiences. Moreover, classic-psychedelic-occasioned mystical experiences are associated with improved psychological outcomes in both healthy volunteer and patient populations. Finally, we review neuroimaging studies that suggest neurobiological mechanisms of classic psychedelics. These studies have also broadened our understanding of the brain, the serotonin system, and the neurobiological basis of consciousness. Overall, these various lines of research suggest that classic psychedelics might hold strong potential as therapeutics, and as tools for experimentally investigating mystical experiences and behavioral-brain function more generally.
Research Summary of 'Classic psychedelics: An integrative review of epidemiology, therapeutics, mystical experience, and brain network function'
βBlossom's Take
Introduction
Classic psychedelics are compounds that primarily act as agonists at the serotonin 2A receptor (5-HT2A R) and include substances such as LSD, mescaline, psilocybin, and naturally occurring DMT in ayahuasca. Earlier preclinical and human work implicates 5-HT2A R as central to the characteristic subjective and behavioural effects of these drugs, although other receptor actions (e.g. 5-HT2C, 5-HT1A, dopaminergic effects at high LSD doses, and TAAR1 activation) and downstream gene expression changes are also reported. Historically, these compounds were used sacramentally in a range of indigenous contexts and attracted major scientific interest in the 1950s–1960s for both basic neuroscience and psychiatry, with early clinical signals for cancer-related psychological distress and addiction; research largely halted in the early 1970s and re-emerged from the 1990s onward. Johnson and colleagues set out to provide an integrative review across four domains: epidemiology of classic psychedelic use, contemporary therapeutic clinical research, the construct and measurement of mystical-type experiences occasioned by psychedelics, and neuroimaging/brain network findings that might explain acute and persisting effects. The review aims to synthesise modern findings on safety, population-level associations, experimental and pilot therapeutic trials, the role of mystical-type experiences as predictors or mediators of benefit, and systems-level neural mechanisms that could underlie both altered conscious states and therapeutic outcomes.
Results
Pharmacology and safety: The review summarises mechanistic evidence that 5-HT2A receptor agonism is necessary for many classic psychedelic effects, supported by animal discrimination studies, 5-HT2A antagonism studies in humans, and genetic knockout models. Other receptor contributions (5-HT2C, 5-HT1A, dopaminergic activity at high LSD doses, TAAR1 activation) and upregulation of immediate early genes with synaptic implications are described. Acute risks described include transient anxious or dysphoric reactions (“bad trips”), modest cardiovascular stimulation (increased blood pressure and heart rate), dose-related headaches, nausea and occasional vomiting. The authors note that prolonged psychiatric reactions appear largely limited to individuals with vulnerability to psychosis, citing historical rates from 1960s–1970s studies that ranged from 0.08% to 4.6% for psychoses after LSD exposure, with higher rates in psychiatric patients. Screening and supervised settings are emphasised as risk-mitigation strategies. Epidemiology and population-level associations: Large national surveys (Monitoring the Future, NSDUH) and other sources (DEA seizure data, Global Drug Survey) are summarised to characterise prevalence trends and harms. The Global Drug Survey (n=22,289) reported 6.2% of respondents practising microdosing, but the authors caution that this self-selected sample likely overestimates general-population use. Analyses of NSDUH data and other observational studies are reported to show either null or modestly protective associations between lifetime classic psychedelic use and mental health outcomes: several investigations found that lifetime psychedelic or psilocybin use was associated with a decreased likelihood of psychological distress, suicidality, and certain substance-use outcomes, including reduced risk of opioid abuse. Additional observational findings linked naturalistic hallucinogen use to reduced criminal recidivism and lower rates of some violent offending in specific samples. The authors repeatedly caution that these are population-level associations, not proof of causation, and reiterate the risks of unsupervised use. Therapeutic clinical research — cancer-related distress: Contemporary clinical trials using a ‘‘psychedelic’’ psychotherapeutic model (preparation, supported high-dose sessions with music and eyeshades, and integration) have produced substantial signals. A 2011 pilot (n=12) compared a moderate oral psilocybin dose (0.2 mg/kg) with niacin and reported trends and subsequent reductions in depression and anxiety scores up to 6 months, with no clinically significant psilocybin-attributable adverse events. Two larger, more recent studies used within-subject designs in patients with life-threatening cancer and anxiety/depression related to illness: one randomised/counterbalanced study in 51 patients compared a high psilocybin dose (~0.31–0.43 mg/kg) to a very low dose (~0.01–0.04 mg/kg) and found significant improvements on multiple outcomes at 5 weeks, with many effects enduring; another study using a high dose versus niacin comparators reported substantial reductions in anxiety and depression with an approximately 60% remission rate on key measures at about 6 months. In these trials, measures of mystical-type experience (MEQ scores) correlated with and statistically mediated therapeutic outcomes. Therapeutic clinical research — depression: Open-label pilot work in treatment-resistant major depressive disorder included a 12-patient study with two psilocybin sessions (10 mg then 25 mg) reporting clinically meaningful reductions. Ayahuasca trials (small inpatient samples of 6 and 17 patients) reported rapid and significant reductions on clinician-rated depression scales at 1, 7 and 21 days post-dose, with SPECT showing increased perfusion in mood-related regions (left nucleus accumbens, right insula, left subgenual area). A randomised trial of ayahuasca versus placebo (n=29 receiving intervention; n=14 ayahuasca) is noted but the extracted text reports mixed or trend-level findings in that study. The authors caution that phase 3 evidence and public funding for large mechanistic trials remain limited. Therapeutic clinical research — addiction: Older randomised LSD trials for alcohol dependence were re-analysed in a 2012 meta-analysis that found robust support for LSD improving outcomes at early follow-up. Contemporary open-label pilots include a smoking cessation study (n=15) combining cognitive behavioural therapy with multiple psilocybin sessions (~0.29–0.43 mg/kg) that reported 80% biologically confirmed abstinence at 6 months and 60% at 2.5 years; mystical-experience strength predicted successful cessation. An alcohol-dependence open-label pilot (n=10) reported large reductions in percentage drinking days and heavy drinking days after psilocybin sessions, sustained at follow-up (drinking days from ~32.5% pre-treatment to ~12.5% in the 4 weeks after session and ~17.5% at final follow-up; heavy drinking days from ~26% to ~8% then ~13%). No serious drug-attributable adverse events were reported in these pilots. The authors emphasise that these studies lack control groups and that larger randomised trials are needed. Mystical-type experience: The review details the construct of mystical experience (unity, sacredness, noetic quality, positive mood, transcendence of time/space, ineffability) and its operationalisation (e.g. MEQ30, MEQ43). Experimental studies in healthy volunteers show that psilocybin reliably induces mystical-type experiences in a dose-dependent manner: higher doses (20–30 mg/70 kg) produced ‘‘complete’’ mystical experiences in a majority of participants (around 61–67% on session day, rising to ~78% at 14-month follow-up in pooled data). Double-blind crossover work comparing psilocybin to active comparators (methylphenidate, dextromethorphan) found substantially greater mystical scores after psilocybin. Clinical therapeutic trials reported that mystical-experience scores correlated with and mediated therapeutic benefit in cancer-related distress, smoking cessation, and alcohol-dependence pilots. Systems-level neuroscience: Neuroimaging and electrophysiological studies indicate that classic psychedelics reduce the modularity and typical integration of large-scale brain networks, particularly impacting default mode network (DMN) regions such as posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) and medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC). Acute effects include decreased within-network connectivity, reconfiguration into more local networks, an increased number of distinct brain activity patterns, and increases in measures described as brain entropy. EEG/MEG work shows broadband reductions in oscillatory power, notably alpha-band decreases in PCC linked to reported ‘‘ego dissolution’’. Molecular imaging yielded findings that can appear discrepant (global decreases in absolute blood flow but relative frontal sparing or hyperfrontality); recent work reconciles this by distinguishing global from relative cerebral blood flow changes. MRS data show psilocybin-associated increases in glutamate in anterior cingulate cortex alongside decreased BOLD, suggesting a potential molecular pathway connected to antidepressant mechanisms. The authors note that enduring neuroplastic or lasting network changes have not yet been conclusively demonstrated and that mechanistic links between acute network reconfiguration, mystical experiences, and enduring clinical benefit remain an active area for research.
Discussion
Johnson and colleagues interpret the body of contemporary evidence as indicating that classic psychedelics, administered within a structured psychotherapeutic framework, produce robust acute subjective effects and promising therapeutic signals across several indications, most notably cancer-related psychological distress and preliminary signals for depression and addiction. They highlight that mystical-type experiences are reliably occasioned by higher doses of psilocybin and LSD in supportive settings, and that these experiences statistically correlate with and appear to mediate many of the enduring positive psychological outcomes observed in both healthy volunteers and patient populations. The review situates these findings within earlier historical research, arguing that modern trials both replicate and extend promising signals from the 1950s–1970s era while benefitting from improved screening, controlled designs, and standardised outcome measurement. At the same time, the authors emphasise important limitations: many therapeutic studies remain small, some are open-label, and there is a need for larger randomised Phase II/Phase III trials and mechanistic studies to confirm efficacy, safety, and neural substrates. They also emphasise persistent safety concerns, including the potential for acute challenging experiences, cardiovascular effects, and the risk of precipitating prolonged psychosis in vulnerable individuals, and therefore stress screening and supervised clinical protocols. In terms of implications, the authors note that if ongoing larger trials confirm safety and efficacy—for example in cancer-related distress or treatment-resistant depression—regulatory approval and carefully controlled clinical deployment could follow. They argue that approved therapeutic use of one classic psychedelic could pave the way for investigation and development of other members of this pharmacological class, given the large number of structurally related compounds. Finally, the authors call attention to the need for substantial funding to support large-scale efficacy and mechanistic trials and observe that public funding to date has been limited; they present contemporary positive findings as a potential impetus for broader investment and further research. No separate formal conclusion section is presented in the extracted text.
Study Details
- Study Typemeta
- Populationhumans
- Characteristicsliterature review
- Journal
- Compounds
- Topics
- Authors
- APA Citation
References (57)
Papers cited by this study that are also in Blossom
Abraham, H. D., Aldridge, A. M., Gogia, P. · Neuropsychopharmacology (1996)
Akers, B. P., Ruiz, J. F., Piper, A. et al. · Economic Botany (2011)
Argento, E., Strathdee, S. A., Tupper, K. et al. · BMJ Open (2017)
Barrett, F. S., Griffiths, R. R. · Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences (2017)
Bogenschutz, M. P., Forcehimes, A. A., Pommy, J. A. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2015)
Bouso, J. C., González, D., Fondevila, S. et al. · PLOS ONE (2012)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Erritzoe, D., Williams, T. et al. · PNAS (2012)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Leech, R., Williams, T. M. et al. · British Journal of Psychiatry (2018)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Leech, R., Shanahan, M. et al. · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (2014)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Muthukumaraswamy, S., Roseman, L. et al. · PNAS (2016)
Show all 57 referencesShow fewer
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Bolstridge, M., Rucker, J. et al. · Lancet Psychiatry (2016)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Roseman, L., Bolstridge, M. et al. · Scientific Reports (2017)
Cohen, S. · Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (1980)
De Gregorio, D., Posa, L., Ochoa-Sanchez, R. et al. · Pharmacological Research (2016)
Dutta, A., Mckie, S., Deakin, J. F. W. · Psychiatry Research (2014)
Dyck, E. · Social History of Medicine (2006)
Fábregas, J. M., González, D., Fondevila, S. et al. · Drug and Alcohol Dependence (2010)
Garcia-Romeu, A., Griffiths, R. R., Johnson, M. W. · Current Drug Abuse Reviews (2015)
Gasser, P., Holstein, D., Michel, Y. et al. · Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (2014)
Griffiths, R. R., Richards, W. A., Mccann, U. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2006)
Griffiths, R. R. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2008)
Griffiths, R. R., Johnson, M. W., Richards, W. A. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2011)
Grob, C. S., Danforth, A. L., Chopra, G. S. et al. · JAMA Psychiatry (2011)
Halberstadt, A. L., Geyer, M. A. · Neuropharmacology (2011)
Halpern, J. H., Sherwood, A. R., Hudson, J. I. et al. · Biological Psychiatry (2005)
Johnson, M. W., Sewell, R. A., Griffiths, R. R. · Drug and Alcohol Dependence (2012)
Johnson, M. W., Garcia-Romeu, A., Cosimano, M. P. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2014)
Johnson, M. W., Garcia-Romeu, A., Griffiths, R. R. · The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse (2016)
Johnson, M. W., Garcia-Romeu, A., Johnson, P. S. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2017)
Johnson, M. W., Griffiths, R. R., Hendricks, P. S. et al. · Neuropharmacology (2018)
Kast, E. · Psychiatric Quarterly (1967)
Kometer, M., Pokorny, T., Seifritz, E. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2015)
Kometer, M., Schmidt, A., Bachmann, R. et al. · Biological Psychiatry (2012)
Krebs, T. S., Johansen, P. Ø. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2012)
Krebs, T. S., Johansen, P. ˚. Ø. · PLOS ONE (2013)
Kurland, A. A. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (1985)
Kyzar, E. J., Nichols, C. D., Gainetdinov, R. R. et al. · Trends in Pharmacological Sciences (2017)
Liechti, M. E., Dolder, P. C., Schmid, Y. · Psychopharmacology (2016)
Ludwig, A., Levine, J., Stark, L. et al. · American Journal of Psychiatry (1969)
Maclean, K. A., Johnson, M. W., Griffiths, R. R. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2011)
MacLean, K. A., Leoutsakos, J. S., Johnson, M. W. et al. · Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (2012)
Majic, T., Schmidt, T. T., Gallinat, J. · Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology (2015)
Mangini, M. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2011)
Moreno, F. A., Wiegand, C. B., Taitano, E. K. et al. · Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (2006)
Muthukumaraswamy, S. D., Carhart-Harris, R. L., Moran, R. J. et al. · Journal of Neuroscience (2013)
Nichols, D. E. · Pharmacological Reviews (2016)
King, C., Nichols, D. E. · Nature Reviews Neuroscience (2013)
Palhano-Fontes, F., Barreto, D., Onias, H. et al. · Psychological Medicine (2018)
Passie, T., Seifert, J., Schneider, U. et al. · Addiction Biology (2002)
Pisano, V. D., Putnam, N. P., Kramer, H. M. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2017)
Preller, K. H., Vollenweider, F. X. · Behavioral Neurobiology of Psychedelic Drugs (2016)
Preller, K. H., Pokorny, D., Hock, A. et al. · PNAS (2016)
Sanches, R. F., Osório, F. L., Dos Santos, R. G. et al. · Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology (2016)
Schartner, M., Carhart-Harris, R. L., Barrett, A. B. et al. · Scientific Reports (2017)
Sewell, R. A. · Neurology (2006)
Speth, J., Speth, C., Kaelen, M. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2016)
Spitzer, M., Thimm, M., Hermle, L. et al. · Biological Psychiatry (1996)
Cited By (117)
Papers in Blossom that reference this study
Wießner, I., Falchi-Carvalho, M., Laborde, S. et al. · Research Square (2026)
Griesfeller, A. F., Kooman, L., Kloft-Heller, L. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2026)
Girn, M., Doss, M. K., Roseman, L. et al. · Nature Medicine (2026)
Artna, E., Sandhu, G., Chisamore, N. et al. · Psychiatry Research (2026)
Dourron, H. M., Bradley, M. K., Copes, H. et al. · International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction (2026)
Lewis-Healey, E., Pallavicini, C., Cavanna, F. et al. · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (2025)
Marsden, J., Kelleher, M., Dunbar, F. et al. · Addiction (2025)
Ludbrook, G., Bryson, N., Taylor, B. et al. · Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology (2025)
Safron, A., Juliani, A., Reggente, N. et al. · Neuroscience of Consciousness (2025)
Ertl, N., Ashraf, I., Azizi, L. et al. · Biorxiv (2025)
Show all 117 papersShow fewer
Dahan, J. D. C., Dadiomov, D., Bostoen, T. et al. · npj Mental Health Research (2024)
Sjöström, D. K., Claesdotter-Knutsson, E., Kajonius, P. J. · Scientific Reports (2024)
Sloshower, J. A., Zeifman, R. J., Guss, J. et al. · Scientific Reports (2024)
Juliani, A., Chelu, V., Graesser, L. et al. · Biorxiv (2024)
Tap, S. C. · Addiction Biology (2024)
Tolle, H. M., Farah, J. C., Mallaroni, P. et al. · Network Neuroscience (2024)
Agin-Liebes, G. I., Nielson, E. M., Zingman, M. et al. · Psychology of Addictive Behaviors (2024)
Allen, J., Dames, S., Foldi, C. J. et al. · Molecular Psychiatry (2024)
Dourron, H. M., Nichols, C. D., Simonsson, O. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2023)
Rosas, F. E., Mediano, P. A. M., Timmermann, C. et al. · Biorxiv (2023)
Kovacevich, A., Weleff, J., Claytor, B. et al. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2023)
Kamilar-Britt, P., Gordis, E. B., Earleywine, M. · Psychedelic Medicine (2023)
Wallach, J., Cao, A. B., Calkins, M. M. et al. · Biorxiv (2023)
Heifets, B. D., Olson, D. E. · Neuropsychopharmacology (2023)
Adamska, I., Finc, K. · Psychopharmacology (2023)
Azmoodeh, K., Thomas, E., Kamboj, S. K. · Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology (2023)
Lake, S., Lucas, P. · Psychedelic Medicine (2023)
Boehnke, K. F., Kruger, D. J., Lucas, P. · International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction (2023)
Girn, M., Rosas, F. E., Daws, R. E. et al. · Trends in Cognitive Sciences (2023)
Kaup, K. K., Vasser, M., Tulver, K. et al. · Frontiers in Psychiatry (2023)
Ruffini, G., Damiani, G., Lozano-Soldevilla, D. et al. · PLOS ONE (2023)
Modlin, N. L., Miller, T. M., Rucker, J. J. et al. · Journal of Affective Disorders (2023)
Gukasayan, N., Narayan, S. K. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2023)
Rabinowitz, J., Lev-Ran, S., Gross, R. · Frontiers in Psychiatry (2023)
Peterson, A., Largent, E. A., Sisti, D. et al. · AJOB Neuroscience (2022)
Bohn, A., Kiggen, M. H. H., Uthaug, M. V. et al. · International Journal for the Psychology of Religion (2022)
Desai, S., Jain, V., Xavier, S. et al. · Children (2022)
Guss, J. · Psychoanalytic Dialogues (2022)
Hendricks, P. S., Simonsson, O. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2022)
Cruzat, J., Perl, Y. S., Escrichs, A. et al. · Network Neuroscience (2022)
Dourron, H. M., Strauss, C., Hendricks, P. S. · Pharmacological Reviews (2022)
Swee, M. B., Nayak, S., Hurwitz, E. et al. · PLOS ONE (2022)
Monroy, M., Keltner, D. · Perspectives on Psychological Science (2022)
Henningfield, J. E., Coe, M. A., Griffiths, R. R. et al. · Neuropharmacology (2022)
Girn, M., Roseman, L., Bernhardt, B. et al. · NeuroImage (2022)
Costa, M. A. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2022)
van Elk, M., Yaden, D. B. · Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews (2022)
Bonnelle, V., Cavarra, M., Kryskow, P. et al. · British Journal of Pain (2022)
Luppi, A. I., Hansen, J. Y., Adapa, R. et al. · Biorxiv (2022)
Hipólito, I., Mago, J., Rosas, F. E. et al. · Psyarxiv (2022)
Jones, G. M., Lipson, J., Nock, M. K. · Scientific Reports (2022)
Johnson, M. W. · Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences (2022)
Friedman, S. F., Ballentine, G. · Biorxiv (2022)
Belser, A. B. · Frontiers in Psychology (2022)
Glowacki, D. R., Wonnacott, M. D., Freire, R. et al. · Scientific Reports (2022)
Kohek, M., Ona, G., Dos Santos, R. G. et al. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2022)
Forstmann, M., Sagioglou, C. · European Psychologist (2022)
Yaden, D. B., Earp, D., Graziosi, M. et al. · Frontiers in Psychology (2022)
Ortiz, C. E., Dourron, H. M., Sweat, N. W. et al. · Neuropharmacology (2022)
Jones, G. M., Ricard, J. A., Lipson, J. et al. · Scientific Reports (2022)
Murphy, R., Murphy-Beiner, A., Kettner, H. et al. · Frontiers in Pharmacology (2022)
Tagliazucchi, E. · Frontiers in Pharmacology (2022)
Gandy, S. · Journal of Psychedelic Studies (2022)
Ciauncia, A., Safron, A. · Psyarxiv (2022)
Sarparast, A., Thomas, K., Malcolm, B. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2022)
Family, N., Hendricks, P. S., Williams, L. T. J. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2022)
Gaddis, A., Lidstone, D. E., Nebel, M. B. et al. · Biorxiv (2022)
Elman, I., Borsook, D., Pustilink, A. · Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews (2022)
Vargas-Perez, H., Grieder, T. E., Van Der Kooy, D. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2022)
Argento, E., Socias, M. E., Hayashi, K. et al. · International Journal of Drug Policy (2022)
Glynos, N. G., Pierce, J., Davis, A. K. et al. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2022)
Strickland, J. C., Johnson, M. W. · Advances in Pharmacology (2022)
Yaden, D. B., Berghella, A. P., Regier, P. S. et al. · International Journal of Drug Policy (2021)
Qiu, X., Minda, J. P. · Psyarxiv (2021)
Strumila, R., Guillaume, S. · Pharmaceuticals (2021)
Hall, W. · Psychological Medicine (2021)
Cavanna, F., Pallavicini, C., Milano, V. et al. · Journal of Psychedelic Studies (2021)
Torregrossa, M. M., Lu, J., Lukasiewicz, K. et al. · Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience (2021)
Johnson, M. W., Gründer, G., Betzler, F. et al. · Current Addiction Reports (2021)
Mayer, C. E., LeBaron, V. T., Acquaviva, K. D. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2021)
Breeksema, J. J., van Elk, M. · ACS Pharmacology and Translational Science (2021)
Cox, D. J., Garcia-Romeu, A., Johnson, M. W. · The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse (2021)
Teixeira, P. J., Johnson, M. W., Timmermann, C. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2021)
Rush, B., Marcus, O., García, S. et al. · Frontiers in Pharmacology (2021)
Yaden, D. B., Johnson, M. W., Griffiths, R. R. et al. · International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology (2021)
Van Elk, M., Fejer, G., Lempe, P. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2021)
Pilecki, B., Luoma, J. B., Bathje, G. J. et al. · Harm Reduction Journal (2021)
Gard, D. E., Pleet, M. M., Bradley, E. R. et al. · Journal of Affective Disorders (2021)
Sumner, R. L., Chacko, E., Mcmillan, R. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2021)
Pasquini, L., Luke, D., Harris, R. E. et al. · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (2021)
Payne, J. E., Chambers, R., Liknaitzky, P. · ACS Pharmacology and Translational Science (2021)
Palhano-Fontes, F., Gorman, I., Nielson, E. M. et al. · Frontiers in Psychology (2021)
Tagliazucchi, E., Zamberlan, F., Cavanna, F. et al. · Frontiers in Psychiatry (2021)
Qiu, T. T., Minda, J. P. · Psyarxiv (2021)
Pallavicini, C., Cavanna, F., Zamberlan, F. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2021)
Lawrence, D. W., Sharma, B., Griffiths, R. R. et al. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2021)
Luppi, A. I., Carhart-Harris, R. L., Roseman, L. et al. · NeuroImage (2021)
Galvão-Coelho, N. L., Marx, W., Sinclair, J. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2021)
Strickland, J. C., Garcia-Romeu, A., Johnson, M. W. · ACS Pharmacology and Translational Science (2020)
Johnson, M. W. · ACS Pharmacology and Translational Science (2020)
Yaden, D. B., Griffiths, R. R. · ACS Pharmacology and Translational Science (2020)
Stauffer, C., Anderson, B. T., Ortigo, K. M. et al. · ACS Pharmacology and Translational Science (2020)
Nichols, D. E., Walter, H. · Pharmacopsychiatry (2020)
Gandy, S., Forstmann, M., Carhart-Harris, R. L. et al. · Health Psychology Open (2020)
Kadriu, B., Greenwald, M., Ba et al. · International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology (2020)
Stenbæk, D. S., Madsen, M. K., Ozenne, B. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2020)
Zeifman, R. J., Wagner, A. C., Watts, R. et al. · Frontiers in Psychiatry (2020)
Girn, M., Mills, C., Roseman, L. et al. · NeuroImage (2020)
Greif, A., Šurkala, M. · Medicine Health Care and Philosophy (2020)
Glowacki, D. R., Wonnacott, M. D., Freire, R. et al. · Association for Computing Machinery (2020)
Reiff, C. M., Richman, E. E., Nemeroff, C. B. et al. · American Journal of Psychiatry (2020)
Fuentes, J. J., Fonseca, F., Elices, M. et al. · Frontiers in Psychiatry (2020)
Uthaug, M. V., Lancelotta, R., Szabo, A. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2019)
Sartori, S. B., Singewald, N. · Pharmacology and Therapeutics (2019)
Luoma, J. B., Sabucedo, P., Eriksson, J. et al. · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science (2019)
Beaton, B., Copes, H., Webb, M. et al. · Journal of Drug Issues (2019)
Webb, M., Copes, H., Hendricks, P. S. · International Journal of Drug Policy (2019)