Neural effects of placebo analgesia in fibromyalgia patients and healthy individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Placebo analgesia is hypothesized to involve top-down engagement of prefrontal regions that access endogenous pain inhibiting opioid pathways. Fibromyalgia (FM) patients have neuroanatomical and neurochemical alterations in pathways relevant to placebo analgesia. Thus, it remains unclear whether placebo analgesic mechanisms would differ in FM patients compared to healthy controls (HCs). Here, using placebo-analgesia-inducing paradigms that included verbal suggestions and conditioning manipulations, we examined whether behavioral and neural placebo analgesic responses differed between 32 FM patients and 46 age- and sex-matched HCs. Participants underwent a manipulation scan, where noxious high and low heat were paired with the control and placebo cream, respectively, and a placebo experimental scan with equal noxious heat temperatures. Before the experimental scan, each participant received saline or naloxone, an opioid receptor antagonist. Across all participants, the placebo condition decreased pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings, decreased activity within the right insula and bilateral secondary somatosensory cortex, and modulated the neurologic pain signature. There were no differences between HCs and FM patients in pain intensity ratings or neural responses during the placebo condition. Despite the perceptual and neural effects of the placebo manipulation, prefrontal circuitry was not activated during the expectation period and the placebo analgesia was unaltered by naloxone, suggesting placebo effects were driven more by conditioning than expectation. Together, these findings suggest that placebo analgesia can occur in both HCs and chronic pain FM patients, without the involvement of opioidergic prefrontal modulatory networks.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".