神经科学与心理学2021nature.com
微剂量使用迷幻剂的成年人报告较低水平的抑郁和焦虑
Adults who microdose psychedelics report lower levels of depression and anxiety
入门 · 约 30 分钟读完前置知识：心理学研究方法基础、横断面研究概念
导读
这项发表于 Nature Scientific Reports 的横断面研究调查了微剂量使用迷幻物质（如裸盖菇素）的成年人的心理健康状况，发现微剂量使用者自我报告的抑郁和焦虑水平低于非使用者。但研究通过社交媒体等迷幻药相关渠道招募自选被试，且依赖自我报告，存在明显的样本偏倚和方法学局限。
HN 关注点：迷幻药治疗精神疾病的潜力，但讨论焦点集中在该研究的方法学缺陷——非盲、非随机、自我选择样本，结论可信度存疑。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：质疑 2 补充 1 亲历 1
质疑指出样本自选偏倚和自我报告的缺陷，且原始数据与结论存在矛盾
在我看来这项研究有几个可疑之处：被试是通过迷幻药相关媒体（播客、线上会议）自选招募的，这本身就是显著的偏倚。心理健康评估只是问'你目前是否有心理/成瘾方面的担忧'，完全靠自我报告而非医学诊断。更关键的是，第6页的表格显示非微剂量者自我报告任何心理健康问题的比例反而低5%，只有用 DASS-21 量表细分时才能得出非微剂量者更焦虑抑郁的结论。从研究 X 的社区里招募被试来研究 X，再用同一社区做对照组，这种做法很成问题。
belval查看英文原文
To me, this study has a few "smells" that makes it dubious: > 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. This is already a significant bias in participants. > 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 So mental health is not actually accessed medically and simply self-reported. To be clear I lack an informed opinion on microdosing psychedelics, but any study that picks its participant from a community engaging in X to study X but then uses the same community to sample their control group (for lack of a better expression) is questionable. EDIT: Page 6 has a table that compare microdosers/non-microdosers and the latter was actually less likely to self-report *any* mental health or substance use problem by 5%. It's only when using the DASS-21 subscales that they can draw the conclusion that non-microdosers are more anxious, depressed or stressed. Their microdosers/non-microdosers ratio is also almost 1:1.
质疑总结研究方法学缺陷，认为结论价值有限
这项研究非盲、非随机对照，基于通过社交媒体自选的个体，通过 app 自我报告症状。虽然我希望迷幻药最终能被证明对某些精神疾病有效，但这项研究说明不了什么。
cameronh90查看英文原文
This study is non-blinded, non-RCT based on individuals who self-selected through social media, self reporting symptoms through an app. While I'm hopeful that psychedelics may prove to be a treatment for some mental health issues, but this study doesn't tell us much.
补充认为研究的真正价值在于大规模在线研究方法本身的探索
我觉得这里真正的看点是用技术手段开展大规模研究对未来的意义。这种规模的研究通常很难（甚至不可能）在这么短时间内完成。重要的问题是：大规模研究的收益是否值得自我报告的代价？如何减少这些代价？想象一下，如果任何研究团队都能轻松开展大规模研究，且数据可靠性哪怕稍有提升（比如用移动健康设备直接测量），科学价值将是巨大的。
Alacart查看英文原文
I replied something similar elsewhere, but I think the real story here is about using tech to administer large scale studies and what that could mean for future research. A lot of people here are discounting the fact that this study would typically be very hard (or impossible) to administer at such a large scale, especially in such a short amount of time. In my mind, the important questions here are: Are the benefits of massive scale studies worth the trade-offs of self-reporting? What can we do to reduce or eliminate those trade-offs? Imagine the scientific value of having easily created, easily administered, massive studies be easily accessible to any research group. If the research data can be made even a little bit more reliable (direct mobile health-kit measurements for example), that's hugely valuable.
亲历以亲身经历佐证迷幻药对心理健康的改善作用
说个亲历的例子：我未婚妻曾饱受严重焦虑和中度抑郁折磨，直到尝试了迷幻蘑菇，之后她进步巨大，并把这很大程度上归功于那次体验。我自己也借此走出了艰难童年后堆积的悲伤。它们不成瘾，也不能在短时间内重复使用，而且在很多地区已经除罪化/合法化。
ensacco查看英文原文
More anecdotal than anything else, my fiance suffered from crippling anxiety and moderate depression until mushrooms. Since then, she's come leaps and bounds, and she attributes quite a bit of this to her trip. As for myself, it helped me get over a mountain of grief after a rough childhood. I feel like there's no way I'd be where I am or forgive as much as I have unless I had taken them. No, they're not addictive. No, you can't take them repeatedly within a short time span. Yes, they're decriminalized/legalized in many areas.
相关资源
从这篇论文所有 HN 讨论帖的全部评论里整理出来的链接。
- 自称作者的回复
历次讨论
- 2021Hacker News 讨论帖292 分 · 239 评
同领域还值得读
神经科学家能理解微处理器吗？（2017）
Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor? (2017)
提出一个思想实验：把神经科学常用的分析方法（损伤实验、电生理、功能定位等）应用到一个我们完全了解其原理的工程系统——6502 微处理器（运行游戏）上，检验这些方法能否真正“理解”…
神经科学与心理学2017 · 411 分 · 135 评进阶 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选大脑衰老呈现非线性转变，提示中年“关键窗口”
Brain aging shows nonlinear transitions, suggesting a midlife "critical window"
这篇 PNAS 论文研究大脑衰老的非线性变化，发现大脑老化并非匀速进行，而是在中年（约 40-60 岁）存在一个关键的"临界窗口期"，此时干预可能有效。
神经科学与心理学2025 · 295 分 · 159 评进阶 · 约 75 分钟编辑精选社交网络中大规模情绪传染的证据（2014）
Evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks (2014)
这篇 2014 年发表于 PNAS 的论文研究了 Facebook 上约 70 万用户的信息流中，减少正面或负面内容是否会传染性地影响用户自己发布内容的情绪。
神经科学与心理学2020 · 285 分 · 72 评入门 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选裸盖菇素使人类大脑去同步化
Psilocybin desynchronizes the human brain
这篇 Nature 研究用个体化的 fMRI 精密成像追踪受试者服用裸盖菇素（psilocybin）前后的脑功能连接变化，发现药物会造成大范围的脑网络「去同步化」，尤其是默认模式…
神经科学与心理学2024 · 273 分 · 259 评进阶 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选对智力的赞扬会削弱儿童的动机与表现（1998）
Praise for Intelligence Can Undermine Children's Motivation (1998)
这篇 1998 年的经典论文（Dweck 等人）通过实验研究表扬方式对儿童动机的影响：夸孩子“聪明”（表扬智力）会让他们回避挑战、害怕失败，而表扬努力则更能培养坚持性。
神经科学与心理学2016 · 253 分 · 155 评入门 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选