Predicting Placebo Responses Using EEG and Deep Convolutional Neural Networks: Correlations with Clinical Data Across Three Independent Datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying likely placebo responders can help design more efficient clinical trials by stratifying participants, reducing sample size requirements, and enhancing the detection of true drug effects. In response to this need, we developed a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) model using resting-state EEG data from the EMBARC study, achieving a balanced accuracy of 69% in predicting placebo responses in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). We then applied this model to two additional datasets, LEMON and CAN-BIND-which did not include placebo groups-to investigate potential relationships between the model's predictions and various clinical features in independent samples. Notably, the model's predictions correlated with factors previously linked to placebo response in MDD, including age, extraversion, and cognitive processing speed. These findings highlight several factors associated with placebo susceptibility, offering insights that could guide more efficient clinical trial designs. Future research should explore the broader applicability of such predictive models across different medical conditions, and replicate the current EEG-based model of placebo response in independent samples.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".