A systematic study of microdosing psychedelics.
Observational microdosing data show people expect far more benefit than users actually report, and one measure — neuroticism — went up. Is that a trade I would knowingly make?
Reasonable evidence with real limitations. how we score evidence
Caveat on this rating: Uncontrolled and unblinded: participants knew they were dosing, sourced their own substances, and were self-selected enthusiasts, so nothing here can separate drug effect from expectation. The authors say as much and explicitly call for dose- controlled research.
The substances used for microdosing are federally illegal.
98 microdosers gave daily ratings over six weeks: psychological functioning rose on dosing days with little carry-over to the following days, and pre-to-post measures showed lower depression and stress and less distractibility — but also higher neuroticism. A companion survey of 263 people found that expectations of benefit were large, wide-ranging, and largely unrelated to what the actual microdosers reported, which is the signature of expectancy rather than pharmacology.
Worth asking
Observational microdosing data show people expect far more benefit than users actually report, and one measure — neuroticism — went up. Is that a trade I would knowingly make?
Source
A systematic study of microdosing psychedelics. — Polito V, Stevenson RJ. (2019)
Indexed peer-reviewed journal
Read the source: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211023
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211023
How this was scored
- Study design
- Cohort study
- Funding
- No external funding
- Published in
- Indexed peer-reviewed journal
- Sample size
- 98
- Preregistered
- No
- Conflicts disclosed
- Yes
- Independent of proponent
- Yes
- Retracted
- No
Read the full scoring rubric, including what it can't tell you.
Published August 19, 2026.
Questions
How strong is the evidence behind this?
Resolv rates this source "moderate evidence". Reasonable evidence with real limitations. It scores 64 out of 100 on our published rubric. One caveat travels with that badge: Uncontrolled and unblinded: participants knew they were dosing, sourced their own substances, and were self-selected enthusiasts, so nothing here can separate drug effect from expectation. The authors say as much and explicitly call for dose- controlled research. The score is calculated from recorded facts about the source — study design, funding, publication venue, sample size, preregistration — not typed in by an editor.
What is the source for this?
A systematic study of microdosing psychedelics. — Polito V, Stevenson RJ. (2019). Published in: Indexed peer-reviewed journal. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211023. The full source is linked on this page so you can read it yourself.
Who paid for this research, and does that matter?
Study design: Cohort study. Funding: No external funding. The researchers were independent of whoever benefits from the result. Industry sponsorship is one of the most reliably measured biases in medicine, which is why funding carries real weight in the score rather than sitting in a footnote.
Is microdosing, microdose, lsd microdosing, psilocybin microdosing, sub-perceptual dosing FDA approved for this use?
No. Its current status is: Not FDA-evaluated for this use. The substances used for microdosing are federally illegal.
Is this medical advice?
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.