Nocebo Effect on Pain Perception and Attention with Children With and Without Attention Deficit And/Or Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Attention deficit disorder with or without hyperactivity (ADHD) has negative consequences for children. The effectiveness of medical interventions and educational outcomes are strongly influenced by expectations, which can be modulated by nocebo effects. The aims of this study were to compare the nocebo effect on pain perception and attention in children with and without ADHD as well as to characterize the associations of the nocebo effect with personal variables, such as anxiety, sleep, and pain catastrophizing. METHODS: Data were collected from 30 children with and without ADHD. The nocebo effect was induced using an inactive pill, "increasing" pain perception and attention deficits. Experimental thermal pain was evoked using a thermode and recorded using a computerized visual analog scale. Attention abilities were measured with the Stop-Signal Task. We also used questionnaires to measure personal variables. RESULTS: When combining groups, the nocebo treatment led to comparable nocebo effects for pain (increased pain perception) and attention (increased time needed for inhibition). When comparing groups, the nocebo effect on pain perception was similar for children with and without ADHD. Inattention, learning problems, anxiety, and sleep problems were associated with the nocebo response for pain and attention. CONCLUSION: This exploratory study conducted in an experimental setting emphasizes the importance of managing children's expectations for pain perception and attention as well as the potentially deleterious impact of negative suggestions on elementary school children.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".