Using day‑1 post‑dose therapy transcripts from a phase IIb trial of psilocybin for treatment‑resistant depression, the authors applied a zero‑shot BART‑based two‑dimensional sentiment classifier combined with the Emotional Breakthrough Index and treatment arm to model outcome. Multinomial models predicted responder status at 3 and 12 weeks with 85–88% accuracy (AUC ≈85–88%), showing that NLP‑derived language features can rapidly predict longer‑term clinical response.
Papers cited by this study that are also in Blossom
Rationale
Therapeutic administration of psychedelics has shown significant potential in historical accounts and recent clinical trials in the treatment of depression and other mood disorders. A recent randomized double-blind phase-IIb study demonstrated the safety and efficacy of COMP360, COMPASS Pathways’ proprietary synthetic formulation of psilocybin, in participants with treatment-resistant depression.
Objective
While the phase-IIb results are promising, the treatment works for a portion of the population and early prediction of outcome is a key objective as it would allow early identification of those likely to require alternative treatment.
Methods
Transcripts were made from audio recordings of the psychological support session between participant and therapist 1 day post COMP360 administration. A zero-shot machine learning classifier based on the BART large language model was used to compute two-dimensional sentiment (valence and arousal) for the participant and therapist from the transcript. These scores, combined with the Emotional Breakthrough Index (EBI) and treatment arm were used to predict treatment outcome as measured by MADRS scores. (Code and data are available at https://github.com/compasspathways/Sentiment2D.)
Results
Two multinomial logistic regression models were fit to predict responder status at week 3 and through week 12. Cross-validation of these models resulted in 85% and 88% accuracy and AUC values of 88% and 85%.
Conclusions
A machine learning algorithm using NLP and EBI accurately predicts long-term patient response, allowing rapid prognostication of personalized response to psilocybin treatment and insight into therapeutic model optimization. Further research is required to understand if language data from earlier stages in the therapeutic process hold similar predictive power.
This secondary analysis is based on the COMP001 phase IIb trial of COMP360 psilocybin for treatment-resistant depression. It frames early prediction of clinical response as a key problem because the primary trial showed benefit for some, but not all, participants.
The authors analyzed COMP001 participants whose post-dose integration sessions were conducted in English and recorded. They used transcripts from the first integration session 1 day after dosing, zero-shot BART-based sentiment scores, Emotional Breakthrough Inventory data, and treatment arm to fit logistic regression models predicting MADRS week-3 response and sustained response through week 12.
The week-3 prediction model included 101 participants and the sustained-response model included 90. Leave-one-out cross-validation produced 85.1% accuracy and AUC 0.877 for week-3 response, and 87.8% accuracy and AUC 0.853 for sustained response. Table 2 also reports responder/non-responder counts by 1 mg, 10 mg, and 25 mg dose group.
The authors interpret NLP sentiment and EBI features from the early integration session as useful predictors of later response, potentially reflecting emotional breakthrough and the quality of the participant-therapist interaction. They emphasize that the analysis is exploratory, limited to the English recorded-session subset, and requires validation in future datasets before clinical use.
The paper concludes that a relatively simple NLP/EBI logistic-regression approach can predict COMP360 response after treatment with high cross-validated performance, but that further validation and testing of earlier-session language data are needed.
Create a free account to open full-text PDFs.
Reiff, C. M., Richman, E. E., Nemeroff, C. B. et al. · American Journal of Psychiatry (2020)
Raison, C. L., Sanacora, G., Woolley, J. D. et al. · JAMA (2023)
Schindowski, E. M., Jungwirth, J., Schuldt, A. et al. · EClinicalMedicine (2023)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Giribaldi, B., Watts, R. et al. · New England Journal of Medicine (2021)
Erritzoe, D., Barba, T., Greenway, K. T. et al. · EClinicalMedicine (2024)
Davis, A. K., Streeter Barrett, F., Cosimano, M. P. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2022)
Marseille, E., Stauffer, C., Agrawal, M. et al. · Frontiers in Psychiatry (2023)
Anderson, B. T., Danforth, A. L., Daroff, R. et al. · EClinicalMedicine (2020)
Marks, M., Cohen, I. G. · SSRN (2021)
Gerber, K., Flores, I. G., Ruiz, A. C. et al. · ACS Pharmacology and Translational Science (2021)
Avancena, A. L. V., Kahn, J. G., Marseille, E. · Clinical Drug Investigation (2022)
Corrigan, K., Haran, M., Mccandliss, C. et al. · Irish Journal of Medical Science (2021)
Card, K. G., Grewal, A., Closson, K. et al. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2023)
Pilecki, B., Luoma, J. B., Bathje, G. J. et al. · Harm Reduction Journal (2021)
Neil, J. C., Nutt, D. J. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2022)
Papers in Blossom that reference this study
Urban, M. M., Zillich, L., Rieser, N. M. et al. · Translational Psychiatry (2026)
Kuc, J., McAlpine, R. G., Sellers, A. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2026)
Brudner, R. M., Kaczmarek, E., Blainey, M. G. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2025)
Kirlic, N., Lennard-Jones, M., Atli, M. et al. · American Journal of Psychiatry (2025)