Expectation and the placebo effect in Parkinson's disease patients with subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine whether the degree to which a patient with Parkinson's disease expects therapeutic benefit from subthalamic nucleus-deep brain stimulation (STN-DBS) influences the magnitude of his or her improved motor response, 10 patients with idiopathic Parkinson's and bilateral STN-DBS were tested after a 12-hour period off medication and stimulation. Four consecutive UPDRS III scores were performed in the following conditions: (a) stimulation OFF, patient aware; (b) stimulation OFF, patient blind; (c) stimulation ON, patient aware; and (d) stimulation ON, patient blind. Statistical significance (P = 0.0001) was observed when comparing main effect ON versus OFF (mean ON: 32.55; mean OFF: 49.15). When the stimulation was OFF, patients aware of this condition had higher UPDRS motor scores than when they were blinded (mean: 50.7 vs. 47.6). With the stimulation ON, UPDRS motor scores were lower when the patients were aware of the stimulation compared with when they were blinded (mean: 30.6 vs. 34.5). The interaction between these levels was significant (P = 0.049). This variation was important for bradykinesia and was not significant for tremor and rigidity. The authors conclude that the information about the condition of the stimulation enhanced the final clinical effect in opposite directions. The results presented support the role of expectation and placebo effects in STN-DBS in Parkinson's disease patients.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".