Predictors of the placebo response in a nutraceutical randomized controlled trial for depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The placebo response in depression studies is the change in symptoms amongst those who receive an inactive treatment. Many well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of depression have a high proportion of placebo responders, with little understanding as to why. The present study assesses characteristics associated with the placebo response in a nutraceutical trial with a large proportion of placebo responders. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a nutraceutical depression RCT which identified no overall treatment benefit relative to placebo (n = 69 in placebo group). We investigated participant characteristics such as socio-demographics, clinical features, and recruitment methods, and their association with the placebo response. Monoaminergic genetic polymorphisms were also assessed. Placebo response was measured based on change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score. The association of these hypothesis-driven variables of interest and the placebo response was examined using linear mixed effects models. RESULTS: Greater levels of education, particularly pursuing post-high school education, better self-reported general health, marriage/de facto, greater improvement in the first trial week, and more failed antidepressant therapies in the current depressive episode were associated with greater placebo response. An increased placebo response was not found in those recruited via social media nor in those with concomitant antidepressant therapy. Single nucleotide polymorphisms from the tryptophan hydroxylase 1 (TPH1) gene (A779C and A218C) were weakly associated with greater placebo response, although the evidence was attenuated after accounting for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: This is, to our knowledge, the first study within nutraceutical research for depression to assess the association between participant characteristics and variation in the placebo response. Several variables appeared to predict the placebo response. Such findings may encourage future trial designs which could dampen placebo response, improve assay sensitivity, and allow for treatment effects to be potentially more detectable. Please cite this article as: Arnold R, Murphy-Smith J, Ng CH, Mischoulon D, Byrne GJ, Bousman CA, Stough C, Berk M, Sarris J. Predictors of the placebo response in a nutraceutical randomized controlled trial for depression. J Integr Med. 2024; 22(1): 46-53.
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 | 0.108 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".