Treatment Expectations—You Get What You Expect—and Depression Plays a Role
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Positive treatment expectations demonstrably shape treatment outcomes regarding pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain. However, knowledge about positive and negative treatment expectations as putative predictors of interindividual variability in treatment outcomes is sparse, and the role of other psychological variables of interest, especially of depression as a known predictor of long-term disability, is lacking. We present results of the first prospective study considering expectations in concert with depression in a sample of 200 patients with chronic low back pain undergoing an inpatient interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy. We analyzed the characteristics of pain and disability, treatment expectation, and depression assessed at the beginning (T0), at the end of (T1), and at 3-month follow-up (T2) of interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy. Treatment expectations did emerge as a significant predictor of changes in pain intensity and disability, respectively, showing that positive expectations were associated with better treatment outcomes. Mediation analyses revealed a partially mediating effect of treatment expectations on the relation between depression and pain outcomes. PERSPECTIVE: These results expand knowledge regarding the role of treatment expectations in individual treatment outcome trajectories in chronic pain patients, paving the way for much-needed efforts toward optimizing patient expectations and personalized approaches in clinical settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".