Change in Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 Second After Sham Bronchoconstrictor in Suggestible but Not Suggestion-Resistant Asthmatic Subjects A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials in asthma often demonstrate a benefit from placebo interventions, although no study has yet characterized this group of placebo responders. Literature points to the importance of suggestion in asthma, and we reasoned that patients' level of suggestibility might influence their likelihood of responding to placebo-like suggestion. METHODS: To determine whether suggestion differentially influenced airway tone in preselected suggestible compared with suggestion-resistant asthmatics, we performed a prospective, double-blind, crossover pilot study in which subjects were identified as being suggestible or suggestion-resistant using the Creative Imagination Scale. Responses to inhaled saline were assessed using FEV1 and a modified Borg scale after the suggestion that the saline was a bronchoconstrictor and subsequently a bronchodilator. RESULTS: Five of eight suggestible subjects compared with one of nine suggestion-resistant subjects demonstrated a fall in FEV1 greater than 150 ml in response to inhaled saline and suggestion of bronchoconstriction (p =.027). Fourteen subjects experienced dyspnea in response to sham bronchoconstrictor, but none reported increased dyspnea after sham bronchodilator. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first time that subjects with asthma have been categorized as suggestible or nonsuggestible with this distinction then used to predict response to an intervention. The results of this pilot study suggest that a subgroup of suggestible asthmatic patients is more likely to respond to a placebo-like sham bronchoconstriction challenge. The data support earlier observations that psychological factors may influence asthma, and provide insights into the placebo response.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".