Effects of Perceived Treatment on Quality of Life and Medical Outcomesin a Double-blind Placebo Surgery Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: This study was part of a large double-blind sham surgery-controlled trial designed to determine the effectiveness of transplantation of human embryonic dopamine neurons into the brains of persons with advanced Parkinson's disease. This portion of the study investigated the quality of life (QOL) of participants during the 1 year of double-blind follow-up. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether QOL improved more in the transplant group than in the sham surgery group and to investigate outcomes at 1 year based on perceived treatment (the type of surgery patients thought they received). DESIGN: Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the transplant or sham surgery. Reported results are from the 1-year double-blind period. SETTING: Participants were recruited from across the United States and Canada. Assessment and surgery were conducted at 2 separate university medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: A volunteer sample of 40 persons with idiopathic Parkinson's disease participated in the transplant ("parent") study, and 30 agreed to participate in the related QOL study: 12 received the transplant and 18 received sham surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions in the parent study were transplantation and sham brain surgery. Assessments of QOL were made at baseline and 4, 8, and 12 months after surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of the actual transplant and sham surgery groups and the perceived treatment groups on QOL and medical outcomes. We also investigated change over time. RESULTS: There were 2 differences or changes over time in the transplant and sham surgery groups. Based on perceived treatment, or treatment patients thought they received, there were numerous differences and changes over time. In all cases, those who thought they received the transplant reported better scores. Blind ratings by medical staff showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: The placebo effect was very strong in this study, demonstrating the value of placebo-controlled surgical 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".