Psychedelic research, claim by claim.

See what studies found, where they disagree, and what remains uncertain.

Request a briefing Read the evidence

claims tiered: 23
works cited: 24
venues: 19

Inside the source library

Counted from the sources we cite. No affiliation implied.

Explore the evidence map

Mice1 of 3: Before

BeforeSchematic illustration. Shao 2021, mice, two-photon. Not a micrograph; drawn spines are not counts.

Dendritic spine density was still higher about a month after one dose.

PreliminaryShao 2021Open

Every chip links to its claim and sources.

Compounds in the cited research

Parent structures · PubChem

Psilocybin has a full synthesis. DMT and 5-MeO-DMT appear in the human-study comparison; LSD, MDMA and ibogaine in cited mouse research.

Where the evidence stops

From molecule to clinic, link by link.

Psilocybin beside two shorter-acting candidates. Each link is a quoted result, a statement with no measurement, or a gap. Missing means not found in the papers reviewed for this comparison. Select a study type to highlight matching links in this comparison.

Who was studied

Key: publishedpublished
Key: statedstated
Key: missingmissing
Key: not applicablenot applicable

MoleculeExposureShort-term benefitMonths laterCare and safety

Psilocybin (reference)

GH001, inhaled 5-MeO-DMT

SPL026, IV DMT

Psilocybin for depression: what holds under pressure.

The published analysis, re-run and stressed against two thresholds. A row is stable when its whole interval shows more benefit than the threshold, and sensitive when the interval straddles it.

Hedges' g with 95% intervals; negative favours psilocybin. Dashed line: −0.24. Dotted line: −0.50. Solid line: no effect.

Primary model (SYPRES, pinned)−0.90 [−1.26, −0.55]−0.24: stable−0.50: stable
Double-blind trials only (as reported)−0.81 [−1.03, −0.60]−0.24: stable−0.50: stable
MDD or TRD only−0.93 [−1.87, 0.01]−0.24: sensitive−0.50: sensitive

Awaiting independent review. Request the two-page brief and its reviewer packet

Leaving out one trial at a time moves g between −0.95 [−1.29, −0.61] (without Rosenblat 2024) and −0.81 [−1.07, −0.55] (without Davis 2021).

SYPRES's 9 other subgroup and sensitivity analyses

Exclude high RoB−0.97 [−1.38, −0.57]−0.24: stable−0.50: stable
Parallel design−0.80 [−1.11, −0.49]−0.24: stable−0.50: sensitive
Crossover or open-label extension−1.04 [−2.06, −0.03]−0.24: sensitive−0.50: sensitive
Expanded inclusion criteria−0.88 [−1.21, −0.56]−0.24: stable−0.50: stable
Excluding outliers−0.81 [−1.07, −0.55]−0.24: stable−0.50: stable
Fixed Effects model−0.84 [−1.02, −0.67]−0.24: stable−0.50: stable
Alternate dosing in Goodwin 2022−0.87 [−1.27, −0.47]−0.24: stable−0.50: sensitive
Clinician-rated outcomes−1.02 [−1.60, −0.44]−0.24: stable−0.50: sensitive
Self-report outcomes−1.00 [−1.68, −0.31]−0.24: stable−0.50: sensitive

Months later: Goodwin 2022, one trial, unpooled

Endpoint score, the time model's measure, Week 9−0.46 [−0.78, −0.15]−0.24: sensitive−0.50: sensitive
Change from baseline, Week 9−0.28 [−0.59, 0.04]−0.24: sensitive−0.50: sensitive
Response, Week 9−0.35 [−0.79, 0.09]−0.24: sensitive−0.50: sensitive
Remission, Week 9−0.37 [−0.86, 0.11]−0.24: sensitive−0.50: sensitive
Endpoint score, the time model's measure, Week 12−0.41 [−0.73, −0.10]−0.24: sensitive−0.50: sensitive
Change from baseline, Week 12−0.24 [−0.55, 0.07]−0.24: sensitive−0.50: sensitive
Response, Week 12−0.50 [−0.92, −0.08]−0.24: sensitive−0.50: sensitive
Remission, Week 12−0.57 [−1.04, −0.10]−0.24: sensitive−0.50: sensitive
Sustained response, week 3 to week 12, Week 3-12 Sustained Response−0.62 [−1.17, −0.07]−0.24: sensitive−0.50: sensitive

If every trial overstated the benefit, would the claim still hold?

An assumed bias toward benefit, added to every trial. An assumption, not an estimate.

Assumed bias 0.00Band R1

Primary model (SYPRES, pinned): g −0.90 [−1.26, −0.55]−0.24: stable−0.50: stable

Stability at −0.24 ends at an assumed bias just above 0.31; at −0.50, just above 0.05.

Awaiting independent review. Request the two-page brief and its reviewer packet

A living evidence grid.

Each card’s counts are computed from a synthesis that rescans the citation graph every week; its tiers and readings are editorial judgments. Claims carry their tier, the research programs behind them, and what would change them.

Living synthesisVersion 2.2Updated 2026-10-11

Psilocybin

Does one dose of psilocybin rewire the brain?

Ask twenty-four sources whether one dose of psilocybin rewires the brain and you get different answers. They differ in who was dosed, what was measured, which species, dose, setting and timing; whether any of these explains the disagreement is a question we pose, not a finding.

Reads 24 of 299
275 citation-linked works not yet read
15 programs
research groups by authorship, across 24 sources
23 claims
and 13 relations, each tiered with its reason
2026-10-14
last citation-graph scan; it reruns weekly

Read the evidence How much to trust this

Our interpretation

The open question it raises

Is durable human “rewiring” specific to the depressed brain rather than a general property of the drug?

A reading offered to the field as a question rather than asserted as fact. Tested against all 24 studies here.

2 automated stress tests. Expert review: invited.

Offer to review it

Healthy volunteersPreliminary

In healthy volunteers, a single 25 mg dose left enduring functional brain changes “largely absent” one month later, though some diffusion-imaging and network-modularity signals persisted; what lasted was mainly psychological: well-being and insight.

Would change ifA pre-registered, adequately powered study in healthy volunteers finds enduring functional brain change at one month or later. That would move this from preliminary to active debate; an independent replication of the null would move it toward established.

Claim 1 in full

Depression patientsPreliminary

In depression patients given two doses with psychological support, psilocybin increased global brain integration (lower network modularity), and the size of that change tracked the antidepressant response.

Would change ifAn independent research program fails to find increased global integration in depression patients, or finds it without any link to antidepressant response. A second independent replication would move this toward established.

Claim 2 in full

MicePreliminary

In mice, one dose drives activity-dependent structural rewiring: dendritic-spine remodeling in frontal cortex that strengthens some routes and weakens recurrent cortical loops, and that depends on the drug-evoked neural activity itself.

Would change ifAn independent lab fails to replicate activity-dependent spine remodeling, or shows the rewiring survives silencing of presynaptic input. Either would move the mechanism from preliminary to active debate.

Claim 4 in full

Healthy volunteersPreliminary

In 15 healthy adults, one dose did not significantly increase synaptic density one week later overall, measured by SV2A PET in frontal cortex and hippocampus. In an exploratory comparison, participants dosed in a therapy-like room showed a greater frontal increase than those dosed in an MRI scanner; the hippocampal difference was smaller, with an interval that included zero.

Would change ifA larger or independently replicated PET study finding a significant overall increase in synaptic density after one dose would move the human question to active debate. A preregistered test of the setting effect would show whether the subgroup difference holds.

Claim 13 in full

For teams making decisions

Request a briefing

We write a commissioned review for one compound and indication: every claim tiered and sourced, the same trust panel and method as our public syntheses, and updates when a new scan changes the picture.

Coverage measured against the citation graph around your question
Independence counted by research program, so one lab’s ten papers count once
What would change the conclusion, stated for every load-bearing claim
A weekly scan and a versioned change log when the literature moves

Biotech BD and clinical teamsPsychedelic-focused fundsClinic operatorsResearch groups

Evidence intelligence for decisions. Not medical advice.