{
  "study_id": "NCT07407595",
  "agent": "framework",
  "run": 2,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.35,
  "effect_direction": "favours control",
  "effect_size_90pct_interval": {"low": -0.95, "high": 0.35, "metric": "Cohen's d for the between-group difference in change in corticospinal excitability from baseline to post-cream (positive = excitability increases more, or falls less, in the pain-expectation group)"},
  "moderator_prediction": "Higher pain catastrophizing / kinesiophobia participants respond more, because fear raises the credibility and weight of threat information, making the pain expectation book heavier; but with n=44 the moderation test will likely be underpowered.",
  "claim_ids_used": ["PM-0585", "PM-0845", "PM-0601", "PM-0124", "PM-0372", "PM-1286", "PM-0086"],
  "rationale": "The framework predicts threat information is priced heavily (PM-0585, PM-0845), delivered by lab authority (PM-0124), and can reach the body (PM-0372). But the outcome is level 4 physiology, a motor-pathway biomarker, not a felt render (PM-1286, PM-0086), where effects are expected smallest. General knowledge: pain anticipation more often yields motor inhibition (reduced MEPs) than facilitation, so sign likely negative. With 22 per arm, noisy Boltzmann-fitted I/O parameters, no masking and a between-subject change design, a significant group x time interaction is plausible but less likely than not; multiple parameters (slope, plateau, S50) and two post timepoints raise the chance somewhat. Fearful participants should respond more (PM-0845, PM-0601)."
}