The effects of distant healing performed by a spiritual healer on chronic pain: a randomized controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Many individuals suffer from various kinds of chronic pain. Some controlled studies on distant healing for chronic pain exist, but no definitive conclusion has been established. OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of distant healing performed by a professional Japanese healer on chronic pain. DESIGN: A double-blind randomized controlled study. SETTING: Holos University, Fair Grove, Missouri. SUBJECTS: People suffering from chronic pain (not caused by clear organic diseases or that persists long after a reasonable period of healing following injuries or surgery) were recruited through local radio and newspaper advertising. Subjects were randomly assigned to a treatment group or control group using a double-blind procedure. INTERVENTIONS: All subjects met the healer at the initial session at Holos University. At the session, a 20-minute group meditation was performed. The healer went back to Japan after the session and started distant healing only to the treatment group for a 2-month period. All participants were asked to meditate for 20 minutes every day during this 2-month period. OUTCOME MEASURES: The visual analog scale and McGill Pain Questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 17 subjects were recruited, and 16 subjects completed the study. Comparison of pretreatment and posttreatment visual analog scale indicated a slightly significant effect of distant healing (P=.056). The Present Pain Intensity Scale showed significant improvement in the treatment group compared to the control group (P=.0016). The Pain Rating Index showed improvement in the treatment group, but the difference between both groups was not statistically significant (P=.12).
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".