Effect of hypnotic suggestion on fibromyalgic pain: Comparison between hypnosis and relaxation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main aims of this experimental study are: (1) to compare the relative effects of analgesia suggestions and relaxation suggestions on clinical pain, and (2) to compare the relative effect of relaxation suggestions when they are presented as "hypnosis" and as "relaxation training". Forty-five patients with fibromyalgia were randomly assigned to one of the following experimental conditions: (a) hypnosis with relaxation suggestions; (b) hypnosis with analgesia suggestions; (c) relaxation. Before and after the experimental session, the pain intensity was measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the sensory and affective dimensions were measured with the McGill Pain Questionnaire. The results showed: (1) that hypnosis followed by analgesia suggestions has a greater effect on the intensity of pain and on the sensory dimension of pain than hypnosis followed by relaxation suggestions; (2) that the effect of hypnosis followed by relaxation suggestions is not greater than relaxation. We discuss the implications of the study on our understanding of the importance of suggestions used in hypnosis and of the differences and similarities between hypnotic relaxation and relaxation training.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".