In a large mobile-app survey of 8,703 adults, psilocybin was the most commonly reported microdose and users described diverse dosing and “stacking” practices with predominantly health and wellness motives. Compared with non-microdosers, microdosers—despite more often reporting a history of mental‑health concerns—reported lower levels of depression, anxiety and stress, suggesting perceived mental‑health benefits that merit longitudinal study.
The use of psychedelic substances at sub-sensorium ‘microdoses’, has gained popular academic interest for reported positive effects on wellness and cognition. The present study describes microdosing practices, motivations and mental health among a sample of self-selected microdosers (n = 4050) and non-microdosers (n = 4653) via a mobile application. Psilocybin was the most commonly used microdose substances in our sample (85%) and we identified diverse microdose practices with regard to dosage, frequency, and the practice of stacking which involves combining psilocybin with non-psychedelic substances such as Lion’s Mane mushrooms, chocolate, and niacin. Microdosers were generally similar to non-microdosing controls with regard to demographics, but were more likely to report a history of mental health concerns. Among individuals reporting mental health concerns, microdosers exhibited lower levels of depression, anxiety, and stress across gender. Health and wellness-related motives were the most prominent motives across microdosers in general, and were more prominent among females and among individuals who reported mental health concerns. Our results indicate health and wellness motives and perceived mental health benefits among microdosers, and highlight the need for further research into the mental health consequences of microdosing including studies with rigorous longitudinal designs.
Rootman and colleagues situate microdosing—regular use of sub-sensorium amounts of psychedelics—within a long history of psychedelic use by Indigenous peoples and recent resurgence in non‑Indigenous contexts. The introduction summarises how most prior scientific attention has focused on full psychedelic doses, whereas microdosing (commonly with psilocybin or LSD) is reported anecdotally to support mood, cognition and general well‑being. The authors note heterogeneous microdosing practices (dose, frequency) and the growing but understudied phenomenon of "stacking", the co‑use of non‑psychedelic substances such as Lion's Mane, niacin or chocolate with microdoses. They highlight a lack of rigorous evidence on microdosing’s mental health effects, on whether reported differences vary by prior mental health history, and on how motives and practices differ across subgroups. The present study reports baseline data from the Microdose.me project, an ongoing longitudinal study designed to characterise microdosing practices, motivations and mental health in a large international sample. The investigators aimed to (1) describe microdosing practices including stacking, (2) compare microdosers and non‑microdosers on depression, anxiety and stress symptoms—particularly among those reporting mental health concerns—and (3) examine whether practices and motives vary by gender and mental health status. The authors present these baseline cross‑sectional findings as a contribution to the limited empirical literature and as groundwork for future longitudinal and experimental work.
Papers cited by this study that are also in Blossom
Anderson, T., Petranker, R., Rosenbaum, D. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2019)
Ona, G., Bouso, J. C. · Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews (2020)
Kuypers, K. P. C., Erritzoe, D., Knudsen, G. M. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2019)
Hutten, N. P. W., Mason, N. L., Dolder, P. C. et al. · International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology (2019)
The study used a cross‑sectional baseline survey collected between November 2019 and July 2020 from self‑selected participants recruited through psychedelic‑related media and events. Participants were directed to the Microdose.me website and completed the study via the Quantified Citizen (QC) mobile application, which at the time was available only on Apple iOS devices; participation was anonymous and required respondents to be ≥18 years and able to complete an English survey, criteria that could not be independently verified due to anonymity. The baseline and supplementary questionnaires comprised up to 123 hierarchical items covering demographics, detailed microdosing practices (substance, dose, frequency, duration), stacking behaviours, other psychoactive substance use, lifetime use of large psychedelic doses, and motives for starting microdosing. After the baseline survey, participants were invited to complete the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale‑21 (DASS‑21), a 21‑item instrument with three 7‑item subscales assessing symptom severity over the past week. Classification into groups was based on the self‑report question "Are you currently engaged in a regular practice of microdosing?" Individuals who reported current regular microdosing were assigned to the microdoser group; the non‑microdoser group included those who had never microdosed and those with a history of microdosing who were not currently microdosing. Psilocybin and LSD microdose amounts were categorised into Low/Medium/High using thresholds derived from prior observational research: for LSD Low ≤ 10 µg, Medium 11–20 µg, High ≥ 21 µg; for psilocybin Low ≤ 0.1 g dried mushrooms, Medium 0.1–0.3 g, High ≥ 0.3 g. Participants could select multiple motives from a list of 18 options or provide free text. Statistical analyses used chi‑square tests to compare categorical variables (demographics, substance use, mental health conditions, microdosing characteristics, motives) and to compare LSD versus psilocybin microdosers. Adjusted residuals identified specific group differences and, to limit type I error from multiple comparisons, chi‑square tests used a p < 0.01 significance threshold. Univariate ANOVAs compared DASS‑21 Depression, Anxiety and Stress subscale scores between microdosers and non‑microdosers, restricted to participants who reported a mental health or substance use concern; supplementary 2×2 ANOVAs tested microdose status by gender. Additional analyses repeated DASS‑21 comparisons limited to participants with lifetime large‑dose psychedelic experience to account for potential confounding by prior high‑dose use.
The baseline survey was completed by 8,703 respondents from 84 countries; the largest proportions were from the USA (62.2%, n = 5,413), Canada (12.7%, n = 1,104), Australia and Great Britain (each 4.2%, n = 366). Current microdosing was reported by 4,050 respondents (46.5%), and 4,653 respondents (53.5%) were classified as non‑microdosers. Compared with non‑microdosers, microdosers tended to be older and more likely to live in urban areas. Overall, 29% of respondents endorsed a current psychological, mental health or addiction concern, most commonly anxiety, depression and PTSD/trauma‑related symptoms; less frequently endorsed conditions included bipolar disorder (2%), eating disorder (2%), opioid dependence (1%) and schizophrenia (< 1%). Substance use in the sample was high, with 78% (n = 6,760) reporting past‑year cannabis use. Microdosers were more likely than non‑microdosers to endorse any mental health or substance use concern (χ2 = 26.89, p < 0.01) and specifically showed higher endorsement of depression (χ2 = 6.95, p < 0.01), PTSD/trauma (χ2 = 8.92, p < 0.01) and tobacco dependence (χ2 = 3.88, p < 0.05). No significant group differences were observed for several other conditions including anxiety (χ2 = 3.19, p = 0.07), problematic cannabis use, problematic alcohol use, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. Regarding other substances, microdosers were less likely to use alcohol frequently and more likely to abstain from alcohol and tobacco, while reporting more frequent cannabis use. Among respondents who completed the DASS‑21 and who reported a mental health or substance use concern, microdosers exhibited lower scores on the Depression, Anxiety and Stress subscales relative to non‑microdosers. Supplementary analyses restricted to participants with lifetime experience of large‑dose psilocybin or LSD (87% of the sample overall; 92% of microdosers vs 83% of non‑microdosers; χ2 = 161.13, p < 0.01) revealed the same pattern: microdosers demonstrated lower Depression, Anxiety and Stress scores (all F(1, 1433) > 6.00, p < 0.01). The authors note these between‑group effects are statistically significant but in the range typically characterised as small. Motivations for microdosing were led by Enhancing Mindfulness, followed by Improving Mood, Enhancing Creativity and Enhancing Learning. Participants with mental health concerns were more likely to endorse Reduce Anxiety, Decrease Substance Use and Improve Mood, whereas those without such concerns more often endorsed Enhance Learning. Gender differences in motives were observed: females more commonly reported Improve Mood and Decrease Anxiety; males more commonly reported Enhance Learning, Increase Sociability and Decrease Substance Use. In terms of practices, psilocybin was the dominant microdosing substance (over 85% of microdosers) versus ~11% for LSD. Psilocybin microdosers were more likely to report medium or high microdose amounts and a greater likelihood of daily or near‑daily use compared with LSD users. Psilocybin users were also more likely to report Decreasing Anxiety and Improving Sleep as motives, yet DASS‑21 scores did not differ between psilocybin and LSD microdosers. Stacking was common: more than half of microdosers combined their microdose with other substances, most frequently Lion's Mane (39%), niacin (18%) and chocolate (5%), with 16% reporting a combination of Lion's Mane and niacin. The extracted text ends mid‑description of comparisons between those who stacked and those who did not, so further details on stacker versus non‑stacker outcomes are not clearly reported here.
Rootman and colleagues interpret their findings as broadly consistent with prior cross‑sectional microdosing studies: psilocybin and LSD are the predominant microdosing agents, most users microdose 1–4 times per week, and motives centre on emotional well‑being and cognitive enhancement. Novel contributions include the large international sample, the inclusion of a demographically similar non‑microdosing comparison group, a detailed description of stacking practices, and the report that microdosers who endorse mental health concerns had lower symptom severity on the DASS‑21 Depression, Anxiety and Stress scales than non‑microdosers with comparable concerns. The authors emphasise that their cross‑sectional design prevents causal inference; lower symptom scores among microdosers may reflect benefits of microdosing, self‑selection of people who respond well to microdosing, or other confounding factors. They also note that the observed group differences were small and that findings rely on self‑report. The study identified behavioural correlates consistent with health‑oriented motives: microdosers were less likely to use alcohol or tobacco and more likely to report reducing problematic substance use as a motive, although they also reported more frequent cannabis use, which may reflect therapeutic rather than recreational intent. Safety considerations and limitations receive attention. The authors urge caution about generalising safety data from infrequent large‑dose psychedelic use to repeated microdosing, and flag a theoretical concern about cardiac valvulopathy via repeated 5‑HT2B receptor activation—an issue raised by analogy to other serotonergic drugs—while noting preclinical evidence to date has not confirmed psilocybin‑related valvulopathy. Key study limitations acknowledged include self‑selection and recruitment bias toward pro‑psychedelic communities, iOS‑only participation, inability to verify eligibility or prior microdosing practices, and limited granularity regarding stacking (for example, the form of Lion's Mane consumed). Strengths cited are the large sample size, the sizeable non‑microdosing comparison group, and the feasibility demonstrated for studying microdosing via an anonymous mobile application. The authors conclude that their results support further rigorous longitudinal and controlled trials to evaluate risks, benefits and best practices, and recommend distinguishing psilocybin and LSD in future research because of observed differences in dose, frequency, stacking and motives.
The authors conclude that, in this large international convenience sample, therapeutic and wellness motivations predominate among people who microdose psychedelics, and microdosers who report mental health concerns show lower self‑reported anxiety and depression than comparable non‑microdosers. They also document substantial diversity in microdosing practices—including dose, frequency and frequent co‑use of non‑psychedelic substances (stacking)—and call for further research to determine how these distinct practices affect cognition, mood and well‑being.
Design and participants. We collected cross-sectional data between November 2019 and July 2020 from self-selected respondents recruited via media related to psychedelic use such as podcasts and online psychedelic research conference presentations. Participants were directed to the Microdose.me website atdose. me/. The website directed participants to install the Quantified Citizen (QC) applicationto their Apple mobile device. The QC application was only available on Apple iOS devices at the time of study; as such, participants were limited to iPhone users. The application hosted the study and participants completed questionnaires and assessments entirely within the application. To encourage participation, users were explicitly not asked to submit any personally identifiable information and use of the application was designed to be completely anonymous. All participants endorsed being 18 years of age or older and capable of responding to an English survey. Nonetheless, given the anonymous nature of the study design, these inclusion criteria could not be verified beyond participant self-report. All participants provided informed consent prior to study initiation. Data are drawn from the baseline and supplementary questionnaires from a longitudinal study of microdosing and mental health and consisted of a maximal total of 123 questions, organized hierarchically such that many items were contingent on prior responses. The questionnaire was developed based on previous research and consultations with experts in the field. The study was approved by the University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board (H19-03051) and all methods were carried out in accordance with their guidelines and regulations. Participants reported demographic data and detailed information on microdosing practices as well as use of psychoactive substances. Participants were classified as microdosers or non-microdoser based on the response to the question "Are you currently engaged in a regular practice of microdosing?". The microdoser group was restricted to individuals reporting a current microdose practice at the time of study participation. The nonmicrodose group included those who had never microdosed and those with a history of microdosing who were not microdosing during the study. Microdosers were asked to specify microdosing substance, dosage, stacking practice, timing protocol, quantity, duration since microdosing initiation, and motivations for microdosing. Psilocybin and LSD microdose amount was converted to low, medium, and high doses based on previous observational studies; for LSD: Low ≤ 10 μg, Medium = 11-20 μg, High ≥ 21 µg and for psilocybin: Low ≤ 0.1 g dried mushrooms, Medium = 0.1-0.3 g dried mushrooms, High ≥ 0.3 g dried mushrooms. Alcohol use, cannabis use, and nicotine use frequency were also assessed, as were past year and lifetime frequency of large, overtly psychedelic doses. Mental health was assessed with the questions "Do you currently have any psychological, mental health or addiction concerns?" Participants who endorsed concerns identified specific mental health and substance use categories from a drop down menu, and were allowed to select more than one category. Motives were assessed through the question "Why did you start microdosing", 18 response options were provided to participants including one opportunity to enter a free text response. Response options assessing motives were generated based on previous researchand consultation with experts in the field. Following completion of the baseline survey, participants were invited to follow a separate link within the app to complete the Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21). The DASS-21 contains three subscales assessing Depression, Anxiety and Stress each of which has 7-items scored from 0 to 3, to assess symptom severity during the past week. The DASS-21 assessment complemented dichotomous baseline mental health questions.
We used X 2 to compare demographic variables, substance use, and mental health conditions of microdosers who reported engaging in a regular practice of microdosing at the time of survey response to non-microdosers who did not report a current microdosing practice. Analyses restricted to microdosers used X 2 to compare LSD and psilocybin microdosers on frequency, dose, stacking practice and motivations. Comparisons were restricted to LSD and psilocybin, as these substances constitute the vast majority of microdosing in prior studies. Comparisons of motivations for microdosing across gender and mental health also used X 2 . Adjusted residuals were used to identify statistically significant differences. Due to the large number of comparisons, all X 2 significance testing was conducted at the p < 0.01 level in order to control for an inflated type 1 error rate associated with multiple comparisons. Univariate ANOVA tests were conducted to compare microdosers and non-microdosers on DASS-21 Depression, Anxiety and Stress subscale scores. Given that the DASS-21 is intended to measure clinical symptom severity, this analysis was limited to participants that reported a mental health condition. This analysis was supplemented with a 2 × 2 univariate ANOVA with microdose status (Microdosers/Non-microdosers) and gender (Male/Female). Further supplementary analyses were conducted with the sample limited to participants who reported a previous experience with large-dose psychedelics in order to control for potential influence of larger dose psychedelic use on DASS-21 scores.
Our characterization of individuals who microdose is generally consistent with those of other cross-sectional studies of microdosing in that psilocybin and LSD were identified as the most frequently used microdosing substances, and the majority of participants reported microdosing between 1 and 4 times per week. Our findings are also congruent with other studies that have identified prominent microdosing motives of enhancing emotional well-being and cognitive functioning. The present results add to prior research that has identified positive associations between microdosing and mental health, and are the first to report associations between microdosing and reduced severity of symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress among adults with reported mental health concerns. Our sample evinced interesting differences with prior research in the relative prominence of psilocybin and LSD; whereas prior observational studies of microdosing reported that LSD was more widely used, our sample reported much higher rates of psilocybin use. Finally, our novel investigations into "stacking" practices revealed that more than half of the microdose sample combines their microdose substance with another substance such as Lion's Mane mushrooms or chocolate. www.nature.com/scientificreports/ The inclusion of a non-microdose comparison group that was similar with regard to important demographics, substance use, and mental health factors constitutes a distinct contribution of our findings to understanding mental health and microdosing. Specifically, approximately one third of our respondents reported concerns related to mental health and substance use, and, among participants who reported such concerns, microdosing was associated with reduced depression, anxiety and stress symptom severity. In addition, participants who reported mental health concerns were also more likely to report mental health-related motives for microdosing, whereas those who did not report mental health concerns were more likely to endorse motives related to enhancing learning and creativity. Taken together, this pattern of associations suggests that a considerable proportion of those who microdose do so with therapeutic intent to treat mental health symptoms and conditions, and that those who do so appear to be slightly less symptomatic of depression and anxiety than their peers who report similar mental health concerns but do not microdose. Carefully controlled clinical trials are required to more confidently elucidate the potential risks and benefits of psychedelic microdosing, however, the present findings suggest that microdosing psychedelics does not appear to be associated with increased acute negative outcomes, even among potentially vulnerable groups such as those with mental health concerns. Although the cross-sectional design of this study precludes causal inference, these findings from a large international sample of microdosers and a similar non-microdosing comparison group adds substantially to a growing body of literature attesting to putative salutary effects of microdosing for mental health and mandate further research with more rigorous longitudinal designs such as randomized clinical trials and large cohort studies. Indeed, although the present study identified statistically significant differences in psychiatric symptom severity based on microdose status, these effects were in the range of effects typically characterized as small. Any conclusions regarding the clinical import of these findings should consider these small effects and the limitations inherent in self-reported effects and cross-sectional design. Microdosers and non-microdosers evinced interesting patterns of differences with regard to the use of other substances. Although both groups in our sample demonstrated rates of cannabis use and large-dose psychedelic use that exceeded what might be expected in a general community sample in Canada, the USAand Europe 39,40 , microdosers were less likely to use alcohol regularly and were more likely to abstain from alcohol entirely. In light of the status of alcohol being among the most harmful psychoactive substances from both a personal and public health perspective, the association between microdosing and low levels of alcohol use appears congruent with the broader health and wellness accentuating motivations for microdosing. Similarly, our finding that microdosers were more likely to abstain from the use of nicotine is also congruent with reducing harms associated with the use of psychoactive substances. Indeed, more than 25% of respondents endorsed the reduction of problematic substance use as a motive for microdosing. In contrast to these lower rates of tobacco and alcohol use, microdosers were more likely to endorse frequent cannabis use. However, although frequent cannabis use may be associated with the development of cannabis related problemsit is also a marker of therapeutic use. As such, although the present study did not directly assess medical versus non-medical intentions of cannabis use, the prominence of therapeutic motives such as reducing anxiety and depression among microdosers suggests the possibility that frequent cannabis use may also reflect similar salutary intent. Future research that examines microdosing should more carefully examine the co-use of cannabis and microdosing and explicitly query therapeutic versus non therapeutic motivations for cannabis use. Similar considerations might also apply to the high levels of large-dose psychedelic use. Moreover, although we did control for prior psychedelic use broadly, further research examining the interaction between large-dose and microdose psychedelics, specifically considering factors such as large-dose frequency, dose and temporal precedence to microdosing, is warranted. The apparently imminent reintegration of large-dose psilocybin and other psychedelics into mainstream medicine prognosticates increased interest in and adoption of microdosing with therapeutic intent, making the rigorous evaluation of risks, benefits, and best practices for combining large-dose and microdose psychedelics a research priority, and several studies of this nature appear to be underway or in development. The promotion of mindfulness was the most highly endorsed motivation for microdosing among respondents who did not report mental health conditions, which suggests that efforts to enhance psychological well-being are primary even among those who are not microdosing to address more pronounced psychological distress. Other prominent motives included facilitating learning and creativity, and promoting health behaviors. Previous studies suggest that microdosing may further some of these desired outcomes, including reductions in mindwandering and increased mindfulness. Indeed, despite the stigmatization and criminalization of psychedelic substance use, motivations for microdosing appear to be overwhelmingly therapeutic or wellness-oriented. In contrast to previous cross-sectional studies of microdosers, our study identified a substantially higher proportion of psilocybin use relative to use of LSD. This finding may be specific to our sample but may also reflect shifts in the popularity and destigmatization of psilocybin that has both motivated and been amplified by recent policy changes such as the decriminalization of psilocybin possession in several jurisdictions and the apparently imminent approval of psilocybin medicines for psychiatric use in several contexts across North America and Europe. Future studies are required to determine the extent to which these findings are anomalous or represent a broader shift in microdosing practices toward psilocybin and away from LSD. Future studies might also probe the generalizability of our novel findings that psilocybin was associated with more stacking with admixtures, with intensive and frequent microdosing, and with a greater focus on therapeutic intentions such as decreasing anxiety and improving sleep. Furthermore, in light of these differences future studies should clearly distinguish between psilocybin and LSD microdosing to avoid obscuring potentially important differences across substances. Popular use of microdosing to address mental health concerns and enhance well-being has outpaced research on the risks and benefits of such use thereby mandating further research. Evidence derived from the use of larger doses of psychedelics suggests that psychedelics with predominantly serotonergic effects are safe when administered in controlled settings. Preliminary results suggest that microdose practices have a similar safety profile to large-dose psychedelic use. Nonetheless, the repeated use over long periods presents potential safety concerns distinct to microdose practices. For example, a potential adverse event specific to psilocybin microdosing are cardiac valvulopathies associated with the repeated activation of serotonin 5-HT 2b receptors via psilocin. Several medications, such as the diet medication Phen/Fen, have been restricted for similar concernsand although pre-clinical research have not suggested psilocybin related valvulopathy, this potential adverse effect requires consideration. More broadly, further research is required to more confidently extrapolate safety data from infrequent use of large doses of psychedelics to the more consistent use of microdoses. In general, our findings highlight the diversity of practices gathered under the umbrella of microdosing. Attempts to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of microdosing need not only account for differences in substance, dose, frequency but should also consider the potential synergies implied by the widespread adoption of the practice of supplementing-or stacking-psychedelics with ingredients such as niacin and Lion's Mane mushrooms. Indeed, although the present examination provides the most detailed account to date of the practice of stacking, our conclusions are nonetheless limited by a need for more fine grained detail regarding stacking practices. For example, animal models suggest that the impact of Lion's Mane on brain functioning appears to be dependent on whether mycelium or fruitbody are consumed, such that mycelium promotes brain functioning whereas the fruitbody may have the reverse effect; however our data did not permit this potential important distinction. As such, disambiguating the form of Lion's Mane consumed by participants is an important distinction for future studies in order to minimize potentially contradictory effects. Further, the literature on stacking substances independent of psychedelic substances is itself limited, particularly with respect to clinical trials with human subjects. In light of the limitations inherent in generalizing from animal to human models, proposals regarding the mechanisms underlying stacking remain speculative and warrant cautious interpretation. Thus, a promising avenue for future microdosing studies would be to distinguish the independent effects and synergies of psychedelic and stacked substances. Finally, although we identified differences in dose and frequency across psilocybin and LSD, interpretation of these apparent differences is limited by the lack of a consistent parameters for what constitutes low, medium, and high dosages of each respective substance. Moreover, interpreting apparent differences in frequency of use may be complicated by duration of effects. The present study has several other important limitations including response bias related to participant selfselection, and recruitment through venues that are favorable toward psychedelic use, which may have resulted in overrepresentation in our sample by individuals who respond favorably to microdosing. Additionally, unavailability of an Android OS version of the QC application at the time of study limited participation to those with access to Apple devices. Given this potential bias, our characterization of the therapeutic use of microdosing should be interpreted with caution pending replication from research that employs a more systematic recruitment approach. Research that employs a more comprehensive psychodiagnostic approach would also increase our confidence of the generalizability of the findings to clinical populations who may consider microdosing to treat mental health concerns. Moreover, the present study did not assess microdosing practices engaged in prior to study completion. As such, we were limited in our ability to speak to the potential influence of more long standing microdosing practices among current microdosers and those with a history of microdosing. These limitations are counterbalanced by several strengths, including a substantially larger sample of microdosers than has been examined by prior research and that allowed for the more granular examination of relationships within and between distinct subgroups of microdosers. The inclusion of a large and comparable group of non-microdosers for the purpose of comparison is another strength and allowed a detailed examination of the associations between microdosing and mental health. More generally, these results highlight the potential and feasibility of studying microdosing and other potentially invisible or difficult to track substance use behaviors using a bespoke, mobile application which allows for the anonymous participation, self-enrolment, and the completion of assessments over time.
Create a free account to open full-text PDFs.
Hutten, N. P. W., Mason, N. L., Dolder, P. C. et al. · Frontiers in Psychiatry (2019)
Lea, T., Jungaberle, H., Schecke, H. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2020)
Polito, V., Stevenson, R. J. · PLOS ONE (2019)
Rosenbaum, D., Weissman, C. R., Anderson, T. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2020)
Fadiman, J., Korb, S. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2019)
Johnstad, P. G. · Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (2018)
Webb, M., Copes, H., Hendricks, P. S. · International Journal of Drug Policy (2019)
Belouin, S. J., Henningfield, J. E. · Neuropharmacology (2018)
Brown, R. T., Nicholas, C. R., Cozzi, N. V. et al. · Clinical Pharmacokinetics (2017)
Papers in Blossom that reference this study
Keyes, K. M., Terry-McElrath, Y., Patrick, M. E. · Drugs and Alcohol Review (2026)
Murphy, R. J., Wardlaw, M., Smith, T. et al. · Journal of Humanistic Psychology (2025)
Syed, O. A., Petranker, R., Fewster, E. C. et al. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2024)
Polito, V., Liknaitzky, P. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2024)
Allen, N., Jeremiah, A., Murphy, R. et al. · Translational Psychiatry (2024)
Allen, J., Dames, S., Foldi, C. J. et al. · Molecular Psychiatry (2024)
Tagen, M., Mantuani, D., Van Heerden, L. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2023)
Dinkelacker, J., Pop, I. · Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (2023)
Szigeti, B., Nutt, D. J., Carhart-Harris, R. L. et al. · Scientific Reports (2023)
Pop, I., Dinkelacker, J. · Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs (2023)
Kinderlehrer, D. A. · International Medical Case Reports Journal (2023)
Henningfield, J. E., Coe, M. A., Griffiths, R. R. et al. · Neuropharmacology (2022)
Cavanna, F., Muller, S., de la Fuente, L. A. et al. · Translational Psychiatry (2022)
Bonnelle, V., Cavarra, M., Kryskow, P. et al. · British Journal of Pain (2022)
Rootman, J. M., Kiraga, M., Kryskow, P. et al. · Scientific Reports (2022)
Sanz, C., Cavanna, F., Muller, S. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2022)
Cavanna, F., Muller, S., de la Fuente, L. A. et al. · Translational Psychiatry (2021)