Living evidence synthesis · Psilocybin (single dose)

Does one dose of psilocybin rewire the brain?

Does a single dose of psilocybin rewire the brain, and for how long?

Ask ten studies whether one dose of psilocybin rewires the brain and you get different answers. Read side by side, much of the disagreement lines up with who was dosed, what was measured and which species. Dose, setting and timing differ between the studies too, so these are possible explanations, not proven causes.

Published 2026-07-19Updated 2026-10-05Version 2.1By PsychDoc.AI

Evidence intelligence, not medical advice. Nothing here recommends using psilocybin or any controlled substance.

Trust panel

How much to trust this

Counts computed, judgments editorial

What we read against what the citation graph says we should, how many separate research programs the evidence rests on, how far we would stake each claim, what would change our mind, and when this was last checked. Counts are computed from this synthesis and its latest scan. Which studies to include, the tier of each claim and how studies relate are editorial judgments, shown with their reasons below.

Coverage

Reads 9 of 39

30 citation-linked works not yet read

Coverage23%

Screened 0 of 34 citation-linked works. Coverage counts all of them until each has a decision.

Most-cited citation-linked works not yet read:

  1. Cortical Surface-Based Analysis (1999, 11,685 citations)
  2. Psilocybin produces substantial and sustained decreases in depression and anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer: A randomized double-blind trial (2016, 2,247 citations)
  3. Psychedelics (2016, 1,808 citations)
  4. Neural correlates of the psychedelic state as determined by fMRI studies with psilocybin (2012, 1,219 citations)
  5. Psychedelics Promote Structural and Functional Neural Plasticity (2018, 1,218 citations)

And 25 more awaiting screening.

How this was computed

The denominator is every work connected to two or more of our sources in the OpenAlex citation graph (cited by them, or citing them), plus the sources themselves. Co-connection surfaces landmark papers a keyword search misses.

Gaps are ordered by citation count. A gap is a candidate to read, not a verdict on relevance.

Independence

7 author programs

across 10 sources

Lyons 2026 and Daws 2022 and Carhart-Harris 2021 share 7 authors (Bruna Giribaldi, Carsten Timmermann, David Erritzøe, …).

Jiang 2026 and Shao 2021 share 4 authors (Alex C. Kwan, Ling-Xiao Shao, Neil K. Savalia, …).

Tied, not merged: RL Carhart-Harris is a co-author across otherwise separate programs (Lyons 2026 + Daws 2022 + Carhart-Harris 2021; Goodwin 2022; Siegel 2024).

Claim 11 draws on more than one source but only one program.

Relation 2 → 1 (population difference); 9 → 2 (measures differently); 4 → 10 (extends); 2 → 1 (population difference, posed) compares studies from the same program.

How this was computed

Two sources belong to the same research program when they share at least two authors, or the same lead or senior author (first or last listed), matched on surname and first initial. Programs are the connected groups in that graph. A single shared mid-list co-author, common on large trials, is shown as a tie between programs rather than merged. Author lists come from the snapshot where available, else the synthesis.

Shared authors mean correlated methods and assumptions, so agreement inside a program is weaker evidence than agreement across programs.

This counts authorship only. Two separate programs can still share participants, data or a sponsor; those ties are named in the claims below and are not yet part of this count.

Evidence tiers

13 claims, 9 relations

Claims

1Established12Preliminary

Relations

3Active debate5Preliminary1Our interpretation

Relation 2 → 1 (population difference, posed) is our own reading, posed as a question: 2 automated stress tests. Tested against 9 of the 10 studies here; not yet re-tested with the rest. Expert review: invited. Offer to review it.

How this was computed

Every claim and relation carries a tier and the reason for it, printed beside it below. Tiers never rely on colour alone.

A novel reading (our interpretation, or anything posed as a question) ships only after at least two automated stress tests with separate briefs failed to refute it. It stays labelled as a question until a named expert reviews it. Ungated novel items: 0.

Living status

Version 2.1

Conclusion last changed 2026-09-29

Corpus scanned 2026-09-28

521 candidates, 34 of them citation-linked, 30 not yet read.

Revised 6 times; last updated 2026-10-05.

How this was computed

A major version means a conclusion moved. A minor version means the synthesis reads more of the field. Wording changes do not bump the version. The scan runs weekly and opens a reviewable pull request; this tile shows the latest reviewed scan.

Full history in the living log.

Fragility

What would change our mind

  • Claim 1

    A 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 2

    An 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 4

    An 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 13

    A 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.

How this was computed

Authored lines, quoted verbatim, for the claims the argument rests on. A tier without a stated condition for revising it is an opinion. A computed fragility index follows once appraisal fields exist on every claim.

What the evidence says

The headlines can't agree. Some say a single dose rewires the brain and opens a weeks-long window of change; others, that the brain quietly returns to normal within a month. Both are describing real studies. Part of the disagreement comes from the science being fragmented: different labs, populations, and instruments, rarely read side by side.

Put side by side, a pattern appears. In depression patients given two doses with therapy support, psilocybin increased the brain's overall “integration,” and bigger changes went with bigger improvements in mood (Daws, 2022). In healthy volunteers given one dose, a newer study found that a month later the enduring changes in how the brain functions were “largely absent”: what lasted was mainly how people felt (Lyons, 2026). Same drug, opposite-sounding results, and one studied sick brains, the other healthy ones.

The healthy side isn't a clean zero, though. A study that scanned seven healthy adults over and over (before, during and for weeks after a dose) found the brain's networks thrown far out of sync during the experience, with most of that fading afterwards. But one link, between the hippocampus and the brain's “default-mode” network, stayed weaker for weeks (Siegel, 2024). So far, lasting change in healthy people looks narrower than in patients, but not absent, and the healthy-volunteer studies measured at different times.

And treatment is a separate question from rewiring. In 233 people with hard-to-treat depression, one 25 mg dose beat a tiny control dose at three weeks, but a lasting benefit beyond that was not established (Goodwin, 2022). In a head-to-head trial against a standard antidepressant, psilocybin did not clearly win on the main measure after six weeks (Carhart-Harris, 2021). In patients, both the brain changes and the symptom changes are established at about three weeks, not yet beyond.

The measure matters too. In mice, one dose visibly remodels the wiring: new connections sprout in the frontal cortex within a day and are still there a month later (Shao, 2021), and the remodeling depends on the brain's own activity while the drug is on board (Jiang, 2026). So structural “rewiring” and “function returned to baseline” can both be true at once: the scaffolding shifts while the day-to-day signal resets, though the clearest structural evidence here is in mice, and some functional changes in people last weeks. The most direct human test so far points the other way: in 15 healthy adults, synaptic density measured by PET one week after a dose did not rise significantly overall, though in a small exploratory comparison, people dosed in a therapy-like room showed more of an increase in the frontal cortex than people dosed in a scanner (Johansen, 2026).

And the famous “four-week window”? That comes from a mouse study showing psychedelics reopen a critical period for social learning, with the window scaled to how long the trip lasts: about two weeks for psilocybin, four for ibogaine (Nardou & Dölen, 2023). It's a striking result, but it's about a specific kind of learning in mice, not a proven four-week rewiring of the human brain. The popular version seems to borrow ibogaine's number and stretch a mouse finding onto people.

One more thing worth knowing: three of the human studies here come from the same research team, two more share a co-author with it, and both mouse rewiring studies come from one lab, so they aren't independent confirmations. A large new study following 62 people out to a year (PsiConnect) may help settle it, but it's still a preprint.

Our reading, offered as a question, not a verdict: across the nine studies in version 2.0, the “does it rewire the brain?” fight may partly dissolve once you separate patients from healthy people, structure from function, and mice from humans. Which leaves the real open question: is the broad change seen in patients something specific to the depressed brain, a fingerprint of getting better, rather than a general effect of the drug? It's also possible the brain change follows the mood improvement rather than drives it, and that dose, therapy support and timing explain part of the split. That's a question for the next round of research, not a claim we can bank today. This reading has not yet been re-tested against Johansen 2026.

One month after a single 25 mg dose vs 1 mg · healthy volunteers · 28 enrolled · exploratory, not preregistered

Mean difference with its 95% confidence interval. Each outcome has its own scale. Right of zero favours 25 mg.

  1. Personal insight

    Psychological Insight Scale (PIS), 0 to 100 visual analogue scale

    27.86points higher

    95% CI 18.90 to 36.82

    Personal insight: 27.86 points higher after 25 mg than after 1 mg, 95% CI 18.90 to 36.82.FAVOURS 25 MG →010203040
    d = 1.2p < 0.0001Bonferroni-correctedIn the paper: Results, 'Psychological outcomes: psychological insight'; Fig. 4B
  2. Well-being

    Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS), 14 to 70, 14 items scored 1 to 5

    4.70points greater increase

    95% CI 0.10 to 9.29

    Well-being: 4.70 points greater increase after 25 mg than after 1 mg, 95% CI 0.10 to 9.29.FAVOURS 25 MG →0246810
    d = 0.6p < 0.05Bonferroni-correctedIn the paper: Results, 'Psychological outcomes: psychological well-being'; Fig. 4C legend
    • We flipped the sign of the printed interval so that, like the other rows, positive favours 25 mg.
    • The paper prints a range of 14 to 70 (Methods, 'Well-being') and a range of 16 to 80 (Fig. 4C legend). No correction was listed when we checked on 2026-10-05. We print 14 to 70, the range the Methods derive from 14 items scored 1 to 5.
    • The paper prints this interval as [−9.29, −0.10] beside a positive mean difference of 4.70. The interval appears to be the 1 mg arm minus the 25 mg arm; the paper does not say which way it subtracted.
  3. Cognitive flexibility

    Extradimensional shift (EDS) errors, IDED set-shifting task, error rate: errors divided by trials in the EDS phase

    0.06fewer errors per trial

    95% CI 0.00 to 0.12

    Cognitive flexibility: 0.06 fewer errors per trial after 25 mg than after 1 mg, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.12.FAVOURS 25 MG →00.050.100.15
    d = 0.5 or 0.6p = 0.016FDR + Bonferroni; legend adds outlier correctionIn the paper: Results, 'Psychological outcomes: cognitive flexibility'; Fig. 4D legend
    • The paper prints 0.5 (Results, 'Psychological outcomes: cognitive flexibility') and 0.6 (Fig. 4D legend). No correction was listed when we checked on 2026-10-05. The two passages may describe different analyses, and the paper does not say which d belongs to this interval, so the figure shows both.
    • The lower end of the interval rounds to zero.
  • No significant effect of the 1 mg dose on any of these tests. (Fig. 4 legend)
  • P values were adjusted within each outcome, not across outcomes. (Discussion)
  • Fixed order: everyone took 1 mg first and 25 mg four weeks later, so practice or order effects cannot be fully ruled out. (Methods, 'Study design and participants'; Discussion)
  • Cohen's d benchmarks: 0.2 small, 0.5 medium, 0.8 large.
Data table
  • Personal insight

    Measure
    Psychological Insight Scale (PIS), 0 to 100 visual analogue scale
    Contrast
    25 mg vs 1 mg, each scored one month after that dose (not a change from baseline)
    Mean difference
    27.86 points
    95% CI
    18.90 to 36.82
    Cohen’s d
    1.2
    p value
    p < 0.0001
    Correction
    Bonferroni-corrected
    Where in the paper
    Results, 'Psychological outcomes: psychological insight'; Fig. 4B
  • Well-being

    Measure
    Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS), 14 to 70, 14 items scored 1 to 5
    Contrast
    25 mg vs 1 mg at one month, reported as a greater increase in well-being after 25 mg
    Mean difference
    4.70 points
    95% CI
    0.10 to 9.29
    Cohen’s d
    0.6
    p value
    p < 0.05
    Correction
    Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparison
    Where in the paper
    Results, 'Psychological outcomes: psychological well-being'; Fig. 4C legend
  • Cognitive flexibility

    Measure
    Extradimensional shift (EDS) errors, IDED set-shifting task, error rate: errors divided by trials in the EDS phase
    Contrast
    One month after 25 mg vs one month after 1 mg
    Mean difference
    0.06 errors per trial
    95% CI
    0.00 to 0.12
    Cohen’s d
    0.5 or 0.6
    p value
    p = 0.016
    Correction
    FDR across the nine IDED task phases plus Bonferroni within the EDS phase (Results). The Fig. 4D legend adds “outlier corrected, see Figure S18C”; the Results do not mention outlier correction.
    Where in the paper
    Results, 'Psychological outcomes: cognitive flexibility'; Fig. 4D legend
One-month outcomes in healthy volunteers, 25 mg psilocybin vs a 1 mg control dose: mean difference and 95% confidence interval, each outcome on its own scale. Effects appear only at 25 mg. Preliminary: exploratory, 28 enrolled. Rebuilt by PsychDoc.AI from Lyons et al.'s CC BY 4.0 data (Nat Commun 2026).

How the studies relate

Where they agree, where they conflict, and why.

How the 13 claims relate, arranged by who was studiedHEALTHYVOLUNTEERSDEPRESSIONPATIENTSMICEHUMANSCROSS-CUTTINGThe headline conflict (“it rewires the brain” vs “changes are largely absent”) partly tracks who was dosed: broad network change lasting weeks has been reported in patients; in healthy volunteers, lasting change has been narrower (Siegel) or largely absent (Lyons). Dose count, psychological support and timing differ too.POPULATIONThe studies also split by what they measure: structural markers (spines, white-matter) can persist while functional day-to-day activity resets, though here the clearest structural persistence is in mice, so this split overlaps species. “Rewiring” and “function returned to baseline” can both be true.MEASUREThe mouse rewiring is one candidate mechanism for the human network changes, but that is a cross-species inference, not a demonstration in humans.MECHANISMPartly in tension, same population: a dense-scanning study of seven healthy adults found one functional change (weaker hippocampus–default-mode coupling) lasting weeks, where the group study found enduring functional change “largely absent” at a month. Different designs and timepoints; together they are consistent with narrow lasting change, or with changes that fade between a few weeks and a month.MEASUREA larger, sponsor-funded, single-dose trial from a separate program (one shared co-author) reports patient effects at the same three-week mark and did not establish a lasting benefit beyond it; Daws's imaging stops at three weeks. The shared horizon is partly by design.EXTENDSSame patients, two measures: part of Daws's integration finding comes from a trial where psilocybin did not clearly beat escitalopram on its primary depression score. The integration signal is evidence about the brain, not proof of a better treatment.MEASUREJiang's network-scale rewiring builds on the same lab's finding that the new spines persist for a month: one lab refining its own result, not an independent replication.EXTENDSThe most direct human test of the synapse-growth idea so far found no significant overall increase in synaptic density one week after a dose, while mice show more and larger dendritic spines within a day that last a month. Different species, measures and timepoints, and the human study is small; an exploratory setting comparison points the other way in the frontal cortex.MEASURERead across the nine studies in version 2.0, the “does it rewire the brain?” conflict may largely be explained by three axes: population (global network change in patients, imaged up to three weeks after the second of two doses; in healthy volunteers after one dose, so far only narrower lasting changes, such as weaker hippocampus–default-mode coupling for weeks), measure (lasting structural change is shown mainly in mice, so this axis overlaps species; in humans, some functional changes last weeks while most reset), and species (mechanism is clearest in mice). Two questions this raises for the field: is the broad human signal a psilocybin-specific response of the depressed brain rather than a general effect of the drug? And since three of the five human findings come from one research program and the other two share a co-author with it, how much is independent replication versus one network refining its own result? (Caveats that could also explain the split: population is confounded with dose, psychological support and timing (patients had two doses with support and were scanned at up to three weeks, healthy volunteers one dose at one month) and the one healthy-volunteer study scanning at weeks, Siegel, did find a lasting change; every human imaging sample here is small; brain integration may follow mood improvement rather than drive it; and in patients, neither brain nor symptom effects are established beyond about three weeks.) Johansen 2026, added in version 2.1, found no significant overall increase in human synaptic density one week after a dose; this reading has not yet been re-tested against it.POPULATION · POSED11. 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.22. 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.33. Those integration changes were seen up to three weeks after the second of two doses; the study did not establish how much longer they last.44. 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.55. In mice, psychedelics reopen a “critical period” for social-reward learning, and the window's length is proportional to each drug's acute subjective duration: roughly two weeks for psilocybin, up to four for ibogaine.66. The popular “psilocybin opens a four-week window that rewires your brain” collapses different things: it appears to borrow ibogaine's four-week mouse figure (psilocybin's was ~2 weeks) or to stretch a one-month mouse spine result, and it merges a behavior-specific mouse finding with human brain imaging, none of which is the same claim.77. In seven healthy adults scanned repeatedly before, during and after a 25 mg dose, psilocybin acutely desynchronized brain networks far more than an active control (methylphenidate). Most changes faded, but weaker coupling between the anterior hippocampus and the default-mode network persisted for weeks.88. In the largest trial here (233 people with treatment-resistant depression), a single 25 mg dose reduced depression scores more than a 1 mg control at three weeks; 10 mg did not separate from control, and a lasting benefit beyond three weeks was not established.99. In a six-week double-blind trial of 59 people with moderate-to-severe depression, two 25 mg doses of psilocybin did not significantly beat daily escitalopram on the primary depression score; secondary measures leaned toward psilocybin but were not corrected for multiple comparisons.1010. In mice, a single dose increased the density and size of dendritic spines in frontal cortex within a day, and the higher spine density was still measurable about a month later.1111. Three of the human studies here come from one research program (Carhart-Harris and colleagues), so they are not independent replications; two other human findings (Siegel, Goodwin) each list him as one co-author among many.1212. A large multimodal human study (PsiConnect, 62 participants, follow-up to one year) is mapping psilocybin's effects across imaging methods, but it is a preprint, and not yet a settled result.1313. 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.
Numbers are the claims listed below, placed by who was studied. Solid lines agree or extend; dashed lines contradict; dotted lines (“measure”) measure the same thing differently; dash-dot lines (“population”) mark a population difference; an arrow points from a mechanism to what it may explain. Violet marks our own reading, posed as a question.
  1. 2 to 1population differenceActive debate

    The headline conflict (“it rewires the brain” vs “changes are largely absent”) partly tracks who was dosed: broad network change lasting weeks has been reported in patients; in healthy volunteers, lasting change has been narrower (Siegel) or largely absent (Lyons). Dose count, psychological support and timing differ too.

    Why this tierTwo different populations and analyses; the field genuinely debates whether durable change is population-specific or a general drug effect.

  2. 1 to 4measures differentlyActive debate

    The studies also split by what they measure: structural markers (spines, white-matter) can persist while functional day-to-day activity resets, though here the clearest structural persistence is in mice, so this split overlaps species. “Rewiring” and “function returned to baseline” can both be true.

    Why this tierStructural vs functional measures answer different questions on different timescales.

  3. 4 to 2mechanism forPreliminary

    The mouse rewiring is one candidate mechanism for the human network changes, but that is a cross-species inference, not a demonstration in humans.

    Why this tierMechanism shown in mice by one lab (Jiang, Shao); human evidence is imaging-level and correlational. Nardou's oxytocin-dependent critical-period mechanism is a rival candidate.

  4. 7 to 1measures differentlyActive debate

    Partly in tension, same population: a dense-scanning study of seven healthy adults found one functional change (weaker hippocampus–default-mode coupling) lasting weeks, where the group study found enduring functional change “largely absent” at a month. Different designs and timepoints; together they are consistent with narrow lasting change, or with changes that fade between a few weeks and a month.

    Why this tierSiegel (n = 7, many scans each, weeks) and Lyons (28 enrolled, group analysis, one month) ask the same question with different instruments. Separate programs, tied by one shared co-author (Carhart-Harris).

  5. 8 to 3extendsPreliminary

    A larger, sponsor-funded, single-dose trial from a separate program (one shared co-author) reports patient effects at the same three-week mark and did not establish a lasting benefit beyond it; Daws's imaging stops at three weeks. The shared horizon is partly by design.

    Why this tierGoodwin measures symptoms and followed patients past week 3; Daws measures brain networks and did not image beyond three weeks. Agreement on timescale, not on mechanism.

  6. 9 to 2measures differentlyPreliminary

    Same patients, two measures: part of Daws's integration finding comes from a trial where psilocybin did not clearly beat escitalopram on its primary depression score. The integration signal is evidence about the brain, not proof of a better treatment.

    Why this tierDaws analyzed imaging from two trials, one of them Carhart-Harris 2021. One program, so this is context, not independent support.

  7. 4 to 10extendsPreliminary

    Jiang's network-scale rewiring builds on the same lab's finding that the new spines persist for a month: one lab refining its own result, not an independent replication.

    Why this tierShao and Jiang share the senior author (Kwan) and several co-authors.

  8. 13 to 10measures differentlyPreliminary

    The most direct human test of the synapse-growth idea so far found no significant overall increase in synaptic density one week after a dose, while mice show more and larger dendritic spines within a day that last a month. Different species, measures and timepoints, and the human study is small; an exploratory setting comparison points the other way in the frontal cortex.

    Why this tierJohansen (human SV2A PET, n = 15, one week) against Shao (mouse two-photon spine imaging, one month). SV2A PET and spine counts are different measures of synapses.

  9. 2 to 1population differenceOur interpretation

    Read across the nine studies in version 2.0, the “does it rewire the brain?” conflict may largely be explained by three axes: population (global network change in patients, imaged up to three weeks after the second of two doses; in healthy volunteers after one dose, so far only narrower lasting changes, such as weaker hippocampus–default-mode coupling for weeks), measure (lasting structural change is shown mainly in mice, so this axis overlaps species; in humans, some functional changes last weeks while most reset), and species (mechanism is clearest in mice). Two questions this raises for the field: is the broad human signal a psilocybin-specific response of the depressed brain rather than a general effect of the drug? And since three of the five human findings come from one research program and the other two share a co-author with it, how much is independent replication versus one network refining its own result? (Caveats that could also explain the split: population is confounded with dose, psychological support and timing (patients had two doses with support and were scanned at up to three weeks, healthy volunteers one dose at one month) and the one healthy-volunteer study scanning at weeks, Siegel, did find a lasting change; every human imaging sample here is small; brain integration may follow mood improvement rather than drive it; and in patients, neither brain nor symptom effects are established beyond about three weeks.) Johansen 2026, added in version 2.1, found no significant overall increase in human synaptic density one week after a dose; this reading has not yet been re-tested against it.

    Why this tierPsychDoc's cross-source reading, offered to the field as a question, not asserted as fact.

    Our reading, posed as a question, not a verdict

    2 automated stress tests (2026-09-29): Stress-tested for v2 against the nine-source set by two automated passes (AI agents) with separate briefs: (1) evidence and confounds, (2) independence, logic and wording. Both returned “survives with required edits”; the edits were applied: dose, support and timing confounds named, the measure axis tied to species, co-authorship across every human finding disclosed, and the alternative that brain integration follows mood added. The agents checked the stated claims against their recall of the papers, not the full texts. These are automated stress tests, not peer review. Independent expert review is invited and not yet complete. (v1's two inline passes, 2026-07-19, covered the five-source wording.)

    Tested against 9 of the 10 studies here; not yet re-tested with the rest.

    Expert review: invited. Offer to review this reading.

The claims, tiered

Every claim carries its tier, the reason for it, and where it comes from.

  1. 1PreliminaryLyons 2026

    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.

    Why this tierLyons: within-subjects, 28 enrolled, exploratory, not pre-registered. “Largely absent” is the authors' phrasing.

    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.

  2. 2PreliminaryDaws 2022

    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.

    Why this tierDaws: two trials; correlational; subscription article (facts cited, figures not reused).

    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.

  3. 3PreliminaryDaws 2022

    Those integration changes were seen up to three weeks after the second of two doses; the study did not establish how much longer they last.

    Why this tierDaws: fMRI at baseline and ~3 weeks post-dose; longer-term durability not measured.

  4. 4PreliminaryJiang 2026

    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.

    Why this tierJiang: C57BL/6 mice, rabies-tracing; silencing a presynaptic region during dosing disrupts the rewiring, evidence it is activity-dependent.

    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.

  5. 5PreliminaryNardou 2023

    In mice, psychedelics reopen a “critical period” for social-reward learning, and the window's length is proportional to each drug's acute subjective duration: roughly two weeks for psilocybin, up to four for ibogaine.

    Why this tierNardou/Dölen: shared across psychedelics; mechanism via oxytocin-mediated LTD and extracellular-matrix remodeling. Durations are the paper's mouse findings.

  6. 6PreliminaryNardou 2023 · Lyons 2026 · Shao 2021

    The popular “psilocybin opens a four-week window that rewires your brain” collapses different things: it appears to borrow ibogaine's four-week mouse figure (psilocybin's was ~2 weeks) or to stretch a one-month mouse spine result, and it merges a behavior-specific mouse finding with human brain imaging, none of which is the same claim.

    Why this tierThe mouse critical-period result is about social-reward learning, not general brain rewiring; the four-week figure is ibogaine's, not psilocybin's; human durable functional change is modest at best (Lyons).

  7. 7PreliminarySiegel 2024

    In seven healthy adults scanned repeatedly before, during and after a 25 mg dose, psilocybin acutely desynchronized brain networks far more than an active control (methylphenidate). Most changes faded, but weaker coupling between the anterior hippocampus and the default-mode network persisted for weeks.

    Why this tierSiegel: precision functional mapping (many repeated scans of a few people rather than one scan of many); n = 7; the only study here with a psychoactive control. Washington University group; Carhart-Harris is one co-author of 33, so it counts as a separate program tied to the Imperial one. Participants were scanned for three weeks after the dose; at an open-label revisit 6 to 12 months later the coupling was back at baseline, though that sample (n = 4) was not powered for small changes.

  8. 8PreliminaryGoodwin 2022

    In the largest trial here (233 people with treatment-resistant depression), a single 25 mg dose reduced depression scores more than a 1 mg control at three weeks; 10 mg did not separate from control, and a lasting benefit beyond three weeks was not established.

    Why this tierGoodwin: phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, three doses (25, 10, 1 mg) with psychological support, after participants stopped their antidepressants; primary outcome MADRS change at week 3. Sponsor-funded (COMPASS Pathways). Adverse events, including suicidal ideation or self-injury, occurred in every dose group. A clinical outcome, not brain imaging.

  9. 9PreliminaryCarhart-Harris 2021

    In a six-week double-blind trial of 59 people with moderate-to-severe depression, two 25 mg doses of psilocybin did not significantly beat daily escitalopram on the primary depression score; secondary measures leaned toward psilocybin but were not corrected for multiple comparisons.

    Why this tierCarhart-Harris 2021: phase 2, active comparator (escitalopram plus 1 mg psilocybin); primary outcome QIDS-SR-16 at week 6, which may be short for escitalopram to reach full effect. A clinical outcome, not imaging. Included because part of Daws's imaging comes from this trial's patients.

  10. 10PreliminaryShao 2021

    In mice, a single dose increased the density and size of dendritic spines in frontal cortex within a day, and the higher spine density was still measurable about a month later.

    Why this tierShao: chronic two-photon imaging of the same dendrites in living mice before and after one dose. Kwan lab: the same lab as Jiang 2026, so the two mouse rewiring papers are one program.

  11. 11EstablishedLyons 2026 · Daws 2022 · Carhart-Harris 2021

    Three of the human studies here come from one research program (Carhart-Harris and colleagues), so they are not independent replications; two other human findings (Siegel, Goodwin) each list him as one co-author among many.

    Why this tierLyons, Daws and the 2021 escitalopram trial share a lead or senior author (Carhart-Harris) and several co-authors (Erritzoe, Nutt, and others), and part of Daws's imaging comes from that trial's patients. Siegel (33 authors) and Goodwin (74 authors) each list Carhart-Harris mid-list. Verifiable authorship and data facts.

  12. 12PreliminaryNovelli 2025

    A large multimodal human study (PsiConnect, 62 participants, follow-up to one year) is mapping psilocybin's effects across imaging methods, but it is a preprint, and not yet a settled result.

    Why this tierbioRxiv preprint (not peer-reviewed), CC-BY-NC-ND; a dataset/methods contribution rather than a specific finding.

  13. 13PreliminaryJohansen 2026

    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.

    Why this tierJohansen: [11C]UCB-J PET at baseline and one week after 0.3 mg/kg psilocybin, in an open-label, single-arm study with no placebo. The VT analysis, run at an interim look on the 12 participants with complete arterial blood data, found no significant increase (mean change: frontal cortex 0.3 mL/cm3, SD 2.6; hippocampus 0.3 mL/cm3, SD 2.0; one-sided p = 0.29 and 0.33), and the study was stopped for futility; BPND, computed for all 15, showed no significant increase either (mean change: frontal cortex −0.01, SD 0.35; hippocampus 0.01, SD 0.28). Setting difference in the change in VT: frontal cortex 3.0 mL/cm3 (95% CI 0.4 to 5.5), hippocampus 1.9 mL/cm3 (95% CI −0.3 to 3.9); the authors call it preliminary and hypothesis-generating. With no placebo arm, the authors note they may have underestimated an increase, because other SV2A studies saw drops at a second scan. The room group's own change in VT: frontal cortex 1.1 mL/cm3 (95% CI −0.5 to 2.7), hippocampus 0.8 mL/cm3 (95% CI −0.5 to 2.1). The Methods list participants 1 to 5 as dosed in the scanner and 6 to 15 in the room; the main text does not say how setting was allocated. SV2A density is a marker of synaptic density in living people, not a count of dendritic spines.

    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.

Limitations

Always visible. Never collapsed.

  • Ten studies: five chosen by hand to span the debate, four added from the 2026-09-28 citation-graph scan, and one added on 2026-10-05 as contrary evidence on human synapse growth. Not a systematic review; the scan's other candidates are not yet screened.
  • Three of the human studies share a research program, and both mouse rewiring studies come from one lab; treat convergence inside a program with caution and divergence as informative.
  • Cross-species and cross-population comparison is interpretive: mouse mechanism does not demonstrate the human mechanism, and patient findings need not generalize to healthy people.
  • The two NEJM trials measure symptoms, not brain change; they bound how long patient effects are established, not whether the brain rewired.
  • Population is confounded with protocol: the patient imaging followed two doses with psychological support and was measured at up to three weeks; the healthy-volunteer studies gave one dose and measured at one week (Johansen, PET), weeks (Siegel) or one month (Lyons).
  • Expectancy: only Siegel used a psychoactive control. A 1 mg comparison dose is easy for participants to recognize, which can inflate effects.
  • Daws, both NEJM trials, Jiang, PsiConnect and Shao are cited only (subscription, non-commercial, no-derivatives, or license not yet checked). Siegel and Johansen are CC BY 4.0 but cited only. No figure from any of them is reproduced.
  • No therapeutic or clinical-use claim is made; this is a communication of evidence, not medical advice.

Open questions

What would change our mind, and what we are asking the field.

  • Is durable human “rewiring” specific to the depressed brain (a marker of clinical response) rather than a general property of the drug?
  • How much of the human evidence is independent replication versus one program refining across populations?
  • Do structural markers (DTI, spines, topology) that persist after function resets carry any functional consequence, or are they statistical residue?
  • Will a large, longer study (PsiConnect, to one year) find durable functional change that smaller studies were underpowered to detect?
  • Does the narrow change that lasts in healthy brains (weaker hippocampus–default-mode coupling) track anything people feel or do?
  • Does brain integration in patients drive their improvement, or follow it?

Sources and provenance

License, data, funding and conflicts for every paper this synthesis reads.

Lyons 2026

Human brain changes after first psilocybin use

Lyons, T., Spriggs, M., …, & Carhart-Harris, R. L. · Nature Communications, 2026

Identifier
doi:10.1038/s41467-026-71962-3 · PMC13144397
License
CC BY 4.0: figures may be rebuilt with attribution.
Data
Source Data: self-report, behavioral, processed EEG and MRI. (CC BY 4.0) · Raw imaging on request (academic, non-commercial).
Conflicts
R. L. Carhart-Harris advises Atai Beckley, Otsuka, Entropy Neurodynamics; D. J. Nutt advises COMPASS Pathways and others.
Corrections
None known.

Daws 2022

Increased global integration in the brain after psilocybin therapy for depression

Daws, R. E., Timmermann, C., …, & Carhart-Harris, R. · Nature Medicine, 2022

License
All rights reserved: cited only, figures not reproduced.
Funding
Medical Research Council; NIHR; EPSRC; Academy of Medical Sciences
Conflicts
Not recorded here; check the paper’s statement.
Corrections
None known.

Jiang 2026

Psilocybin triggers an activity-dependent rewiring of large-scale cortical networks

Jiang, Q., Shao, L.-X., …, & Kwan, A. C. · Cell, 2026

Identifier
doi:10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.009 · PMC12695013
License
CC BY-NC 4.0: cited only, figures not reproduced.
Data
Analysis code and region-level data. (GPL-3.0) · source
Conflicts
Not recorded here; check the paper’s statement.
Corrections
None known.

Nardou 2023

Psychedelics reopen the social reward learning critical period

Nardou, R., Sawyer, E., …, & Dölen, G. · Nature, 2023

Identifier
doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06204-3 · PMC10284704
License
CC BY 4.0: figures may be rebuilt with attribution.
Conflicts
Not recorded here; check the paper’s statement.
Corrections
None known.

Novelli 2025

PsiConnect: A Multimodal Neuroimaging Study of Psilocybin-Induced Changes in Brain and Behaviour

Novelli, L., Stoliker, D., …, & Razi, A. · bioRxiv (preprint), 2025

License
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0: cited only, figures not reproduced.
Conflicts
Not recorded here; check the paper’s statement.
Corrections
None known.

Carhart-Harris 2021

Trial of Psilocybin versus Escitalopram for Depression

Carhart-Harris, R., Giribaldi, B., …, & Nutt, D. · New England Journal of Medicine, 2021

License
All rights reserved: cited only, figures not reproduced.
Conflicts
Not recorded here; check the paper’s statement.
Corrections
None known.

Goodwin 2022

Single-Dose Psilocybin for a Treatment-Resistant Episode of Major Depression

Goodwin, G. M., Aaronson, S. T., …, Carhart-Harris, R. L., …, & Malievskaia, E. · New England Journal of Medicine, 2022

License
All rights reserved: cited only, figures not reproduced.
Funding
COMPASS Pathways (trial sponsor)
Conflicts
Sponsored by COMPASS Pathways, which develops the COMP360 psilocybin tested; several authors are company employees.
Corrections
None known.

Shao 2021

Psilocybin induces rapid and persistent growth of dendritic spines in frontal cortex in vivo

Shao, L.-X., Liao, C., …, & Kwan, A. C. · Neuron, 2021

License
Unknown: cited only, figures not reproduced.
Conflicts
Not recorded here; check the paper’s statement.
Corrections
None known.

Siegel 2024

Psilocybin desynchronizes the human brain

Siegel, J. S., Subramanian, S., …, Carhart-Harris, R. L., …, & Dosenbach, N. U. F. · Nature, 2024

Identifier
doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07624-5 · PMC11291293
License
CC BY 4.0: figures may be rebuilt with attribution.
Conflicts
Not recorded here; check the paper’s statement.
Corrections
None known.

Johansen 2026

Psilocybin’s effect on human brain synaptic plasticity

Johansen, A., Plavén-Sigray, P., Madsen, M. K., …, & Knudsen, G. M. · Translational Psychiatry, 2026

License
CC BY 4.0: figures may be rebuilt with attribution.
Funding
Innovation Fund Denmark; Independent Research Fund Denmark; Rigshospitalet's Research Council; Swedish Research Council; Lundbeck Foundation; COMPASS Pathways PLC supported one author's salary and, per the paper, had no other relation to the study
Conflicts
G. M. Knudsen: speaker for Cybin and H Lundbeck, and consultant for Sanos, Onsero, Pangea, Gilgamesh, Seaport and Abbvie, within the last three years (per the paper). M. K. Madsen: scientific advisor to Lobe Sci (per the paper).
Corrections
None known.

Living log

This page is versioned. Every change is recorded here.

  1. 2026-10-05v2.1Sources added

    Added Johansen et al. 2026 (Translational Psychiatry, CC BY 4.0) as contrary evidence: in 15 healthy adults, no significant overall increase in synaptic density one week after a dose, with an exploratory setting subgroup pointing the other way. Softened the summary: population, measure and species line up with much of the disagreement, but dose, setting and timing are competing explanations. The posed reading is scoped to the nine studies it was stress-tested against; it has not been re-tested with the tenth. The AI passes are now described as automated stress tests.

  2. 2026-10-05Wording

    Corrections and presentation. The outcomes chart now shows each outcome as a mean difference with its 95% confidence interval in the measure's own units. For cognitive flexibility, Lyons et al. give Cohen's d = 0.5 in the Results text and 0.6 in the Fig. 4D legend for the same contrast. The legend adds “outlier corrected”, and the paper does not say which d belongs to which analysis; no correction notice exists, so the chart shows both values and says why. Siegel's follow-up is now stated from the paper (three weeks post-dose; back at baseline at a 6 to 12 month revisit, n = 4) and its license checked (CC BY 4.0). Review status clarified: the adversarial passes were run by AI agents against the stated claims, not full texts, and independent expert review has not happened yet. Earlier notes said it was pending before publication; it was not a gate that was applied before this page went live. No claim, tier or conclusion changed.

  3. 2026-10-01Wording

    Moved to PsychDoc.AI, now this synthesis's canonical home; citation permalinks point to psychdoc.ai. Attribution changed from Oryx to PsychDoc and punctuation edited to house style; no claim, tier or conclusion changed.

  4. 2026-09-29v2.0Conclusion changed

    The first scheduled scan (2026-09-28) found four papers the hand-picked set missed, each linked to three or four of the original five: Carhart-Harris 2021 and Goodwin 2022 (NEJM trials), Shao 2021 (mouse spines) and Siegel 2024 (healthy-volunteer precision imaging). Siegel narrowed the posed reading's population axis: lasting functional change in healthy volunteers is narrow, not absent. The independence rule was tightened so a single shared mid-list co-author ties two programs instead of merging them. The posed reading was re-verified by two independent adversarial reviews; their required edits (dose, support and timing confounds; measure overlapping species; co-authorship across every human finding) are applied.

  5. 2026-09-24Wording

    Added would-change-if lines to the three headline claims and the corpus spec (field query, seeds, screening criteria) that drives the scheduled scan. No conclusion changed.

  6. 2026-07-19v1.0Revision

    Initial synthesis across 5 sources. Novel population×measure×species reading double-checked inline (confound + completeness passes); independent expert review pending before publication.

Corpus scan of 2026-09-28: 521 candidates around 5 seed papers, 34 linked to two or more seeds, 30 not yet read and not yet screened. Scheduled scan (GitHub Actions corpus-refresh, run 36420865828). Generated: assisted. Created 2026-07-19, updated 2026-10-05.

Cite

Cite this synthesis

PsychDoc.AI. (2026). Does one dose of psilocybin rewire the brain? (updated 2026-10-05). https://psychdoc.ai/evidence/psilocybin-rewiring

BibTeX

@misc{psychdoc_psilocybin_rewiring_2026,
  author       = {PsychDoc.AI},
  title        = {Does one dose of psilocybin rewire the brain?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://psychdoc.ai/evidence/psilocybin-rewiring}},
  note         = {synthesis object; published 2026-07-19, updated 2026-10-05}
}

Permalink: https://psychdoc.ai/evidence/psilocybin-rewiring

Cite the sources

  1. Lyons, T., Spriggs, M., …, & Carhart-Harris, R. L. (2026). Human brain changes after first psilocybin use. Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-71962-3
  2. Daws, R. E., Timmermann, C., …, & Carhart-Harris, R. (2022). Increased global integration in the brain after psilocybin therapy for depression. Nature Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01744-z
  3. Jiang, Q., Shao, L.-X., …, & Kwan, A. C. (2026). Psilocybin triggers an activity-dependent rewiring of large-scale cortical networks. Cell. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.009
  4. Nardou, R., Sawyer, E., …, & Dölen, G. (2023). Psychedelics reopen the social reward learning critical period. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06204-3
  5. Novelli, L., Stoliker, D., …, & Razi, A. (2025). PsiConnect: A Multimodal Neuroimaging Study of Psilocybin-Induced Changes in Brain and Behaviour. bioRxiv (preprint). https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.04.11.643415
  6. Carhart-Harris, R., Giribaldi, B., …, & Nutt, D. (2021). Trial of Psilocybin versus Escitalopram for Depression. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2032994
  7. Goodwin, G. M., Aaronson, S. T., …, Carhart-Harris, R. L., …, & Malievskaia, E. (2022). Single-Dose Psilocybin for a Treatment-Resistant Episode of Major Depression. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2206443
  8. Shao, L.-X., Liao, C., …, & Kwan, A. C. (2021). Psilocybin induces rapid and persistent growth of dendritic spines in frontal cortex in vivo. Neuron. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2021.06.008
  9. Siegel, J. S., Subramanian, S., …, Carhart-Harris, R. L., …, & Dosenbach, N. U. F. (2024). Psilocybin desynchronizes the human brain. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07624-5
  10. Johansen, A., Plavén-Sigray, P., Madsen, M. K., …, & Knudsen, G. M. (2026). Psilocybin’s effect on human brain synaptic plasticity. Translational Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-026-04285-y

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.

What do you need?

Used only to answer your request. No mailing list.