Harnessing Placebo Effects for the Treatment of Functional Cognitive Disorder: A Feasibility Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Limited research has directly investigated whether and how placebo effects can be harnessed for the treatment of functional neurological disorder (FND), despite a long-standing and controversial history of interest in this area. METHODS: A small exploratory study was conducted with adults with a cognitive subtype of FND recruited from a single cognitive neurology center in the United States. Participants were given the expectation of receiving cranial stimulation that could benefit their memory symptoms; however, the intervention was sham transcranial magnetic stimulation (placebo). Outcomes included measures of short-term memory testing, subjective memory rating, and state anxiety before and after stimulation. After the study, the true objective and rationale for investigating placebo effects were explained in a scripted debriefing session. Acceptability of the study design and qualitative feedback were collected. Institutional ethics approval and signed consent were obtained. RESULTS: Three patients (female, N=2; male, N=1; average age=57 years) were recruited. Outcome data were analyzed descriptively at the patient level. Trends of improvement in subjective memory rating, but not objective cognitive test scores, and decreases in state anxiety were observed. After the debriefing session, all patients found the study design to be acceptable (ratings of 70%, 90%, and 100%), and two of the three patients believed that withholding mechanistic information about the intervention was needed to leverage placebo effects as treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In the first study to prospectively investigate the feasibility of harnessing placebo effects for the treatment of FND, promising preliminary findings were obtained, and methods and resources for use in larger future studies are offered.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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".