Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of placebos in psychiatry can be understood only in the context of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Placebo treatments are as old as medicine itself, and are particularly effective in dealing with psychosomatic symptoms. In psychiatry, placebos have mainly been featured in clinical drug trials. The earliest controlled trial in psychiatry (not involving drugs) occurred in 1922, followed by the first crossover studies during the 1930s. Meanwhile the concept of randomization was developed during the interwar years by British statistician Ronald A Fisher, and introduced in 3 trials of tuberculosis drugs between 1947 and 1951. These classic studies established the RCT as the gold standard in pharmaceutical trials, and its status was cemented during the mid-1950s. Nevertheless, while the placebo became established as a standard measure of drug action, placebo treatments became stigmatized as unethical. This is unfortunate, as they constitute one of the most powerful therapies in psychiatry. In recent years, moreover, the dogma of the placebo-controlled trial as the only acceptable data for drug licensing is also being increasingly discredited. This backlash has had 2 sources: one is the recognition that the US Food and Drug Administration has been too lax in permitting trials controlled with placebos alone, rather than also using an active agent as a test of comparative efficacy. In addition, there is evidence that in the hands of the pharmaceutical industry, the scientific integrity of RCTs themselves has been degraded into a marketing device. The once-powerful placebo is thus threatened with extinction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.011 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".