Placebo analgesia: Self-report measures and preliminary evidence of cortical dopamine release associated with placebo response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Placebo analgesia is measured by self-report, yet current, expected, and recalled efficacy may be differentially related to brain function. Here we used a human thermal pain model to compare self-reports of expected, concurrent, and recalled efficacy of a topical placebo analgesic, and tested associations of the three measures of efficacy with changes in dopamine D2/D3 receptor availability in brain using [(18)F]fallypride with positron emission tomography (PET). Participants (15 healthy women) were assessed on three test days. The first test day included a laboratory visit, during which the temperature needed to evoke consistent pain was determined, placebo analgesia was induced via verbal and experience-based expectation, and the placebo response was measured. On two subsequent test days, PET scans were performed in Control and Placebo conditions, respectively, in counterbalanced order. During Visit 1, concurrent and recalled placebo efficacy were unrelated; during the Placebo PET visit, expected and recalled efficacy were highly correlated (ρ = 0.68, p = 0.005), but concurrent efficacy was unrelated to expected or recalled efficacy. Region of interest analysis revealed dopamine D2/D3 receptor availability was lower in left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex in the Placebo condition (p < 0.001, uncorrected), and greater change in this measure was associated with higher levels of recalled analgesic efficacy (ρ = 0.58, p = 0.02). These preliminary findings underscore the need to consider how self-reported symptom improvement is assessed in clinical trials of analgesics and suggest that dopaminergic activity in the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex may promote recalled efficacy of placebo.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".