Placebo response in trichotillomania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trichotillomania is a functionally impairing, often overlooked disorder with no Food and Drug Administration-approved medications indicated for its treatment. The ability of clinical trials to detect the beneficial effects of pharmacologic treatment in trichotillomania has been hampered by the high placebo response rate. Very little is known about baseline demographic and clinical characteristics that may be predictive of placebo response in such patients. Overall, 104 participants assigned to placebo were pooled from five double-blind trials conducted at three sites in the USA and Canada. Participants were classified as placebo responders or nonresponders on the basis of a cutoff of a 35% reduction in symptom severity on the Massachusetts General Hospital Hair Pulling Scale. Baseline group differences were characterized using t-tests and equivalent nonparametric tests as appropriate. Thirty-one percent of individuals assigned to placebo treatment showed a significant clinical response to placebo. Placebo responders (n=32) and nonresponders (n=72) did not differ significantly on any demographic or clinical variable. Predictors of placebo response for trichotillomania remain elusive and do not appear to be similar to those reported for other mental health disorders.
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 | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".