Hypnotizability and Opinions About Hypnosis in a Clinical Trial for the Hypnotic Control of Pain and Anxiety During Pregnancy Termination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This descriptive study evaluates the hypnoanalgesic experience's effect on participants' hypnotizability and opinions about hypnosis and identifies factors associated with hypnotizability. Hypnotizability was assessed using the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale: Form A in 290 women 1 month after their participation in a randomized clinical trial evaluating hypnotic intervention for pain/anxiety versus standard care during pregnancy termination. Opinions were collected before and after the intervention. The regression model describing hypnotizability (F = 13.55; p < .0001; R(2) = 0.20) retained 5 variables but not the intervention group. The variable explaining most of total variance (62.9%) was the level of perceived automaticity/involuntariness. Opinions about hypnosis were modified by the hypnotic experience compared to standard care but were not associated with hypnotizability. Exposure to hypnoanalgesia did not influence hypnotizability but modifies significantly the opinions about hypnosis. Consistent with previous findings, perceived automaticity appears to best predict hypnotizability.
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 | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".