Influencing the Insulin System by Placebo Effects in Patients With Diabetes Type 2 and Healthy Controls: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate whether placebo effect induced by pharmacological conditioning with intranasal insulin can affect glucose, insulin, C-peptide, hunger, and memory in patients with diabetes type 2 and healthy controls. METHODS: Placebo effect was induced by pharmacological conditioning. Thirty-two older patients (mean age = 68.3 years) with diabetes type 2 and age- and sex-matched thirty-two healthy older adults (mean age = 67.8 years) were randomly assigned to a conditioned or a control group. On day 1, conditioned group received six administrations of intranasal insulin with a conditioned stimulus (CS; smell of rosewood oil), whereas the control group received a placebo with the CS. On day 2, both groups received a placebo spray with the CS. Glucose, insulin, and C-peptide were repeatedly measured in blood. Hunger and memory were assessed with validated measures. RESULTS: Intranasal insulin stabilized dropping glucose levels in patients ( B = 0.03, SE = 0.02, p = .027) and healthy men ( B = 0.046, SE = 0.02, p = .021), and decreased C-peptide levels in healthy controls ( B = 0.01, SE = 0.001, p = .008). Conditioning also prevented the drop of glucose levels but only in men (both healthy and patients; B = 0.001, SE = 0.0003, p = .024). Conditioning significantly decreased hunger in healthy participants ( B = 0.31, SE = 0.09, p < .001). No effects were found on other measures. CONCLUSIONS: Placebo effect induced by conditioning with intranasal insulin modifies blood glucose levels and decreases hunger in older adults, but its effects depend on health status and sex. Insulin conditioning might be beneficial for groups suffering from intensive hunger but seems not be particularly suitable for blood glucose reduction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NL7783 ( https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7783 ).
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".