Cited by 616Neuroendocrine regulation and behaviorOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesStress Responses and Cortisol

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 111 of the 113 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 30 of the 88 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Intranasal Oxytocin: Myths and Delusions

Open access
Leng, Gareth, Ludwig, Mike·2016·Biological Psychiatry

Abstract

Despite widespread reports that intranasal application of oxytocin has a variety of behavioral effects, very little of the huge amounts applied intranasally appears to reach the cerebrospinal fluid. However, peripheral concentrations are increased to supraphysiologic levels, with likely effects on diverse targets including the gastrointestinal tract, heart, and reproductive tract. The wish to believe in the effectiveness of intranasal oxytocin appears to be widespread and needs to be guarded against with scepticism and rigor. Preregistering trials, declaring primary and secondary outcomes in advance, specifying the statistical methods to be applied, and making all data openly available should minimize problems of publication bias and questionable post hoc analyses. Effects of intranasal oxytocin also need proper dose-response studies, and such studies need to include control subjects for peripheral effects, by administering oxytocin peripherally and by blocking peripheral actions with antagonists. Reports in the literature of oxytocin measurements include many that have been made with discredited methodology. Claims that peripheral measurements of oxytocin reflect central release are questionable at best.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The review argues that despite widespread reports of behavioral effects, very little intranasally applied oxytocin reaches CSF while peripheral concentrations rise to supraphysiological levels. It contends that many findings are undermined by poor oxytocin assays, publication bias, and questionable analyses, and calls for preregistration, dose-response studies, and controls for peripheral effects.

Key findings

  • Across seven studies of intranasal oxytocin/vasopressin, at most 0.005% of the intranasal dose reached CSF within an hour; two studies found no rise. Intranasal doses exceeded pituitary content as a bolus, yet produced only modest CSF increases.
  • Intranasal administration produced large, prolonged rises in circulating oxytocin: four studies achieved plasma oxytocin >20 pg/ml from basal <5 pg/ml; Modi et al. reported a 100-fold increase in macaques to >300 pg/ml, and Dal Monte et al. reported a rise to 80 pg/ml after nasal spray but no significant rise with a nebuliser.
  • Many plasma oxytocin measurements used unextracted ELISA yielding values >300 pg/ml; three studies comparing ELISA with and without extraction on the same samples reported no correlations. Peripheral measurements are questionable as reflections of central release.
  • Recent trials with clear primary outcomes showed no effect of intranasal oxytocin in schizophrenia, healthy volunteers, early psychosis, Prader-Willi syndrome, MDMA users, or youths with autism spectrum disorders; in one autism study, caregivers who believed their children received oxytocin reported greater improvements than those who believed their child received placebo.

Methods

  • Critical/narrative review of published animal and human literature on intranasal oxytocin pharmacokinetics, CSF and plasma measurements, behavioral effects, and publication bias; no new experimental data are reported.
  • Synthesizes seven studies measuring CSF oxytocin or vasopressin after intranasal administration and compares reported CSF/plasma concentrations and estimated percentages of dose reaching CSF.
  • Discusses assay validity, including extracted versus unextracted plasma measurements, radioimmunoassay, LC/mass spectrometry, and ELISA, and reviews trial-design issues such as preregistration and primary outcome reporting.

Limitations

  • The authors state that it is not impossible that enormous intranasal doses achieve biologically significant brain elevations, and that intranasally applied oxytocin might penetrate some brain regions yet not enter CSF.
  • They state that effects of intranasal oxytocin need proper dose-response studies and controls for peripheral effects, by administering oxytocin peripherally and by blocking peripheral actions with antagonists.
  • Evident from the text: this is a narrative critical review, not a systematic review or meta-analysis, and its conclusions depend on cited studies with heterogeneous methods and measurements.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.05.003

Cites

111 of 111 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

35 No full text of the sources · 13 Own interpretation · 11 Partly supported · 7 Supported · 7 No basis given · 3 Supported so far · 3 Not supported · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 36 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 39
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 5
43 of 43
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    CSF oxytocin concentration is a valid proxy for behaviorally relevant oxytocin penetration into the brain.

    “At most, 0.005% of intranasally injected oxytocin reaches the CSF within an hour.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Doses of oxytocin required to produce behavioral effects in animals indicate the brain concentrations needed for behavioral effects in humans.

    “Are these enormous intranasal doses enough to deliver effective concentrations of oxytocin into the brain?”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The recent trials cited as showing no effect had sufficient statistical power to detect effects of intranasal oxytocin.

    “Several recent trials conform to some of these conditions, particularly in reporting clear primary outcomes.”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 113 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 608

Metadata

Authors
Leng, G., & Ludwig, M.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Leng, Gareth
Venue
Biological Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-02
Volume
79
Issue
3
Pages
243-250
ISSN
0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1750764127
Cited by
616
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 79 · 2019: 63 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 76 · 2016: 77
FWCI
8.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/J004723)
  • Edinburgh Patrick Wild Centre, and the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration (245009, 607310)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
Keywords
intranasal oxytocin, cerebrospinal fluid, dose-response relationship, publication bias, questionable research practices, oxytocin antagonist
MeSH terms
Administration, Intranasal, Brain, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Humans, Oxytocin, Social Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review