Validating a biosignature-predicting placebo pill response in chronic pain in the settings of a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The objective of this study is to validate a placebo pill response predictive model-a biosignature-that classifies chronic pain patients into placebo responders (predicted-PTxResp) and nonresponders (predicted-PTxNonR) and test whether it can dissociate placebo and active treatment responses. The model, based on psychological and brain functional connectivity, was derived in our previous study and blindly applied to current trial participants. Ninety-four chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients were classified into predicted-PTxResp or predicted-PTxNonR and randomized into no treatment, placebo treatment, or naproxen treatment. To monitor analgesia, back pain intensity was collected twice a day: 3 weeks baseline, 6 weeks of treatment, and 3 weeks of washout. Eighty-nine CLBP patients were included in the intent-to-treat analyses and 77 CLBP patients in the per-protocol analyses. Both analyses showed similar results. At the group level, the predictive model performed remarkably well, dissociating the separate effect sizes of pure placebo response and pure active treatment response and demonstrating that these effects interacted additively. Pain relief was about 15% stronger in the predicted-PTxResp compared with the predicted-PTxNonR receiving either placebo or naproxen, and the predicted-PTxNonR successfully isolated the active drug effect. At a single subject level, the biosignature better predicted placebo nonresponders, with poor accuracy. One component of the biosignature (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex-precentral gyrus functional connectivity) could be generalized across 3 placebo studies and in 2 different cohorts-CLBP and osteoarthritis pain patients. This study shows that a biosignature can predict placebo response at a group level in the setting of a randomized controlled trial.
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 | 0.180 | 0.239 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".