Multidisciplinary Approach to Hypnosis: Psychiatric Basis, Neuroimaging and Genetic Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypnosis, a practice often misunderstood and surrounded by misconceptions, has a rich historical lineage dating back to ancient civilizations. Our review explores the relationship between neuroanatomy, genetics, and hypnotic susceptibility, investigating organic factors influencing an individual's responsiveness to hypnosis. This review highlights the importance of hypnosis as a high-level cognitive activity, especially in pain and anxiety management, and emphasizes the potential benefits of integrating hypnosis into healthcare practices. Recent advancements in neuroimaging have provided insights into the neurological mechanisms of hypnosis, while genetic research has expanded its applications. However, persistent misconceptions hinder its acceptance. This article offers a multidisciplinary basic exploration of hypnosis, focusing on its origins, historical development related to psychiatry, the basic neuroimaging findings mainly affecting the limbic system responsible for emotion, and genetic underpinnings. We aim to inspire clinicians, social scientists, and healthcare professionals to effectively integrate the scientific basics of hypnosis into therapeutic practice, contributing to a better understanding of its role in augmenting outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".