{
  "study_id": "NCT07133529",
  "agent": "baseline",
  "run": 4,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.25,
  "effect_direction": "favours intervention",
  "effect_size_90pct_interval": {"low": -0.2, "high": 0.45, "metric": "Cohen's d (within-subject, crossover) for uncertainty minus certainty in buffet intake (positive = more eaten under uncertainty)"},
  "moderator_prediction": "Stress eaters (high SSES) and those with larger subjective stress/cortisol rises under uncertainty should eat more in the uncertain condition, because the uncertainty manipulation works mainly through stress, and stress-induced overeating is concentrated in self-reported stress eaters; likely reported as exploratory and underpowered.",
  "claim_ids_used": [],
  "rationale": "Pre-registered lab experiment, base rate about 44% positive. The manipulation is mild: meal timing is withheld, and every participant is fasted and then offered the same buffet in both sessions, so the uncertainty is brief and at most moderately stressful. Stress affects total intake inconsistently, often shifting food choice rather than amount. A plausible true within-subject d is 0.1-0.25. With n=45 (fewer after dropout), power to detect that is roughly 15-40%. Ad libitum intake varies a lot between sessions, and 30-day spacing with cycle-phase effects adds noise. The primary outcome is an objective measure among 28 registered outcomes, so a buffet effect may not be the headline result. Slightly positive expected direction."
}