Evidence mapPaperPMID 41332155Full record

ReviewCNS spectrums2025

Ritual to relief: ethical frontiers in repurposing psychoactive substances.

Emma O'Leary, Seetal Dodd, Stephen Stahl

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in CNS spectrums, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Emma O'LearyIMPACT- The Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, School of Medicine, https://ror.org/02czsnj07Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1014-453X
Seetal DoddIMPACT- The Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, School of Medicine, https://ror.org/02czsnj07Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Stephen StahlDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychoactive substances, known for their acute impact on perception and cognition, are gaining attention for their potential therapeutic applications. Many of these substances are plant-derived with deep-rooted histories of use in non-medical contexts, where they have been viewed as either tools for social cohesion or sources of discord, depending on cultural and societal contexts. This review explores psychoactive substances; psychedelics, cannabis, and stimulants, in a legitimized medical context, focusing on the ethical considerations shaping research and the regulatory and prescribing challenges involved in translating these compounds into viable clinical treatments. It highlights the diverse voices; Indigenous, philosophical, psychiatric, and using communities advocating for careful consideration of their broader implications. Key issues include navigating the blurred boundaries between therapeutic benefit and potential misuse, ensuring rigorous scientific methodologies, and addressing the sociopolitical factors shaping public perception and policy. The article emphasizes the need for evidence-based frameworks that balance innovation with patient safety and calls for approaches that recognize the social and commercial determinants of health, extending ethical considerations beyond merely prescribing. By critically assessing the promise and limitations of repurposing these substances, the article contributes to the ongoing discourse on their role in contemporary psychiatric practice.

Indexed as

Ceremonial BehaviorDrug RepositioningPsychotropic DrugsHallucinogensHumansHallucinogensPsychotropic DrugscannabisethicspsychedelicPsychoactivestimulants

Identifiers

PMID41332155
PMCPMC13064764

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.