Placebo and nocebo effects in randomized double‐blind clinical trials of agents for the therapy for fatigue in patients with advanced cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A significant response to placebo in randomized controlled trials of treatments for cancer-related fatigue (CRF) had been reported. A retrospective study was conducted to determine the frequency and predictors of response to placebo effect and nocebo effects in patients with CRF treated in those trials. METHODS: The records of 105 patients who received placebo in 2 previous randomized clinical trials conducted by this group were reviewed. The proportion of patients who demonstrated clinical response to fatigue, defined as an increase in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue score of > or = 7 from baseline to Day 8, and the proportion of patients with a nocebo effect, defined as those reporting >2 side effects, were determined. Baseline patient characteristics and symptoms recorded using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) were analyzed to determine their association with placebo and nocebo effects. RESULTS: Fifty-nine (56%) patients had a placebo response. Worse baseline anxiety and well-being subscale score (univariate) and well-being (multivariate) were significantly associated with placebo response. Commonly reported side effects were insomnia (79%), anorexia (53%), nausea (38%), and restlessness (34%). Multivariate analysis indicated that worse baseline (ESAS) sleep, appetite, and nausea were associated with increased reporting of the corresponding side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Greater than half of advanced cancer patients enrolled in CRF trials had a placebo response. Worse baseline physical well-being score was associated with placebo response. Patients experiencing specific symptoms at baseline were more likely to report these as side effects of the medication. These findings should be considered in the design of future CRF trials.
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 | 0.044 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".