CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 587Psychedelics and Drug StudiesTreatment of Major DepressionTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Psilocybin for treatment-resistant depression: fMRI-measured brain mechanisms

Open access
Carhart-Harris, Robin L, Roseman, Leor, Bolstridge, Mark, Demetriou, Lysia, Pannekoek, J Nienke, Wall, Matthew B, Tanner, Mark, Kaelen, Mendel, McGonigle, John, Murphy, Kevin, Leech, Robert, Curran, H Valerie, Nutt, David J·2017·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-13282-7PMC PMC5640601
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Psilocybin with psychological support is showing promise as a treatment model in psychiatry but its therapeutic mechanisms are poorly understood. Here, cerebral blood flow (CBF) and blood oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) were measured with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) before and after treatment with psilocybin (serotonin agonist) for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Quality pre and post treatment fMRI data were collected from 16 of 19 patients. Decreased depressive symptoms were observed in all 19 patients at 1-week post-treatment and 47% met criteria for response at 5 weeks. Whole-brain analyses revealed post-treatment decreases in CBF in the temporal cortex, including the amygdala. Decreased amygdala CBF correlated with reduced depressive symptoms. Focusing on a priori selected circuitry for RSFC analyses, increased RSFC was observed within the default-mode network (DMN) post-treatment. Increased ventromedial prefrontal cortex-bilateral inferior lateral parietal cortex RSFC was predictive of treatment response at 5-weeks, as was decreased parahippocampal-prefrontal cortex RSFC. These data fill an important knowledge gap regarding the post-treatment brain effects of psilocybin, and are the first in depressed patients. The post-treatment brain changes are different to previously observed acute effects of psilocybin and other ‘psychedelics’ yet were related to clinical outcomes. A ‘reset’ therapeutic mechanism is proposed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-017-13282-7

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Whole-brain cerebral blood flow maps for baseline versus one-day post-treatment, plus the difference map (cluster-corrected, p < 0.05, n = 16). Correlation chart shows post-Treatment changes in bilateral amygdala CBF versus changes in depressive symptoms (r = 0.59, p = 0.01). One patient failed to completed the scan 2 QIDS-SR16 rating, reducing the sample size to n = 15 for the correlation analysis. In all of the images, the left of the brain is shown on the left.
Figure 1 Whole-brain cerebral blood flow maps for baseline versus one-day post-treatment, plus the difference map (cluster-corrected, p < 0.05, n = 16). Correlation chart shows post-Treatment changes in bilateral amygdala CBF versus changes in depressive symptoms (r = 0.59, p = 0.01). One patient failed to completed the scan 2 QIDS-SR16 rating, reducing the sample size to n = 15 for the correlation analysis. In all of the images, the left of the brain is shown on the left.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Top two rows = sgACC (purple) RSFC before and after psilocybin treatment (hot colours = regions of significantly positive coupling). Bottom row reveals regions where there was a significant increase in sgACC RSFC post-treatment (hot colours). All maps are cluster-corrected, p < 0.05, Z > 2.3.
Figure 2 Top two rows = sgACC (purple) RSFC before and after psilocybin treatment (hot colours = regions of significantly positive coupling). Bottom row reveals regions where there was a significant increase in sgACC RSFC post-treatment (hot colours). All maps are cluster-corrected, p < 0.05, Z > 2.3.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Top two rows = vmPFC (purple) RSFC before and after psilocybin treatment (hot colours = regions of significantly positive coupling). Bottom row reveals regions where there was a significant increase in vmPFC RSFC post-treatment (hot colours). All maps are cluster-corrected, p < 0.05, Z > 2.3. Increased coupling between the vmPFC and the displayed regions (bottom row) was predictive of clinical response at 5-weeks post-treatment. Chart shows mean values and positive standard errors.
Figure 3 Top two rows = vmPFC (purple) RSFC before and after psilocybin treatment (hot colours = regions of significantly positive coupling). Bottom row reveals regions where there was a significant increase in vmPFC RSFC post-treatment (hot colours). All maps are cluster-corrected, p < 0.05, Z > 2.3. Increased coupling between the vmPFC and the displayed regions (bottom row) was predictive of clinical response at 5-weeks post-treatment. Chart shows mean values and positive standard errors.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Top two rows = Bilateral PH (purple) RSFC before and after psilocybin treatment (hot colours = regions of significantly positive coupling). Bottom row reveals regions where there was a significant decrease in PH RSFC post-treatment (cold colours). All maps are cluster-corrected, p < 0.05, Z > 2.3. Decreased coupling between the PH and the displayed regions (bottom row) was predictive of clinical response at 5-weeks post-treatment (t = −1.9, p = 0.04). Chart shows mean values and negative standard errors.
Figure 4 Top two rows = Bilateral PH (purple) RSFC before and after psilocybin treatment (hot colours = regions of significantly positive coupling). Bottom row reveals regions where there was a significant decrease in PH RSFC post-treatment (cold colours). All maps are cluster-corrected, p < 0.05, Z > 2.3. Decreased coupling between the PH and the displayed regions (bottom row) was predictive of clinical response at 5-weeks post-treatment (t = −1.9, p = 0.04). Chart shows mean values and negative standard errors.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Differences in between-RSN RSFC or RSN ‘segregation’ before and after therapy. Each square in the matrix represents the strength of functional connectivity (positive = red, negative = blue) between a pair of different RSNs (beta values). The matrix on the far right displays the between-condition differences in covariance (t values). The RSNs are: 1) medial visual network, 2) lateral visual network, 3) occipital pole network, 4) auditory network, 5) sensorimotor network, 6) DMN, 7) parietal cortex network, 8) the dorsal attention network, 9) the salience network, 10) posterior opercular network, 11) left frontoparietal network, 12) right frontoparietal network. White asterisks represent significant differences (P < 0.05, non-corrected). Both of the significant differences did not survive FDR correction for multiple comparisons.
Figure 5 Differences in between-RSN RSFC or RSN ‘segregation’ before and after therapy. Each square in the matrix represents the strength of functional connectivity (positive = red, negative = blue) between a pair of different RSNs (beta values). The matrix on the far right displays the between-condition differences in covariance (t values). The RSNs are: 1) medial visual network, 2) lateral visual network, 3) occipital pole network, 4) auditory network, 5) sensorimotor network, 6) DMN, 7) parietal cortex network, 8) the dorsal attention network, 9) the salience network, 10) posterior opercular network, 11) left frontoparietal network, 12) right frontoparietal network. White asterisks represent significant differences (P < 0.05, non-corrected). Both of the significant differences did not survive FDR correction for multiple comparisons.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 64 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Avants, B. B., Tustison, N. & Song, G. Advanced normalization tools (ANTS). Insight J 2, 1–35 (2009).
  2. Carhart-Harris, R. L. et al. Neural correlates of the LSD experience revealed by multimodal neuroimaging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 4853–4858 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  3. Roseman, L., Leech, R., Nutt, D. J., Feilding, A. & Carhart-Harris, R. L. The effects of psilocybin and MDMA on between-network resting state functional connectivity in healthy volunteers. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00204 (2014). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 587

Related

Metadata

Authors
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Roseman, L., Bolstridge, M., Demetriou, L., Pannekoek, J. N., Wall, M. B., Tanner, M., Kaelen, M., McGonigle, J., Murphy, K., Leech, R., Curran, H. V., & Nutt, D. J.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Hammersmith Hospital (GB)
  • University of Cape Town (ZA)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Carhart-Harris, Robin L
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-10-13
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
13187-13187
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41598-017-13282-7
PMC
PMC5640601
OpenAlex
W2762746674
Cited by
587
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 48 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 80 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 90 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 7
FWCI
49.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (200804/Z/16/Z)
  • Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychedelics and Drug Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Keywords
psilocybin, treatment-resistant depression, cerebral blood flow, resting-state functional connectivity, amygdala, default mode network, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, parahippocampal cortex, treatment response prediction, serotonin receptor agonists, psychedelics
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Depression, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Psilocybin

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.

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