Forecasting study · Forecasts

All 100 forecasts

For each trial: the hypothesis as fixed before forecasting, the rule that will score it, and the five forecasts from each group with their reasoning. Probabilities are for the hypothesis being reported as supported under the rule.

Does Psilocybin Change Synaptic Density in Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment

NCT06041152 · Centre for Addiction and Mental Health · enrollment 10 · registry status active not recruiting · protocol file

Hypothesis. Synaptic vesicular density ([18F]SynVesT-1 PET volume of distribution) is higher after two 25 mg psilocybin doses than after placebo.

Counts as supported if: Supported if the report finds significantly higher SynVesT-1 binding in the psilocybin group(s) than placebo in its primary region or analysis. N = 10 (actual) across four arms.
Effect metric: Percent difference in SynVesT-1 volume of distribution, psilocybin vs placebo (positive = higher density after psilocybin).

Baseline forecasters: mean 0.10

Run	p	Direction	90% interval	Reasoning
1	0.08	null	-6 to 9	Pilot with N=10 split over four arms (about 5 psilocybin vs 5 placebo), so power to detect anything short of a very large effect is minimal. Objective PET outcome removes the expectancy/unblinding boost that inflates psilocybin symptom trials. Animal work (pig SV2A PET) suggested modest increases of a few percent, but human SV2A PET after psilocybin in healthy volunteers has not shown clear increases, and test-retest variability of SV2A VT (~5-10%) is comparable to plausible effects. Objective outcomes rarely move in small trials; base rate for a significant primary result here is low. Some chance of a nominal positive in hippocampus via multiple regions, hence not near zero. Moderator: none detectable; if any trend, aMCI participants might show a slightly larger relative increase because of lower baseline synaptic density, but with 4 healthy participants split across arms no moderator test is interpretable
2	0.12	null	-6.0 to 9.0	Pilot with N=10 split across four arms (~5 psilocybin vs ~5 placebo). SV2A PET test-retest variability is roughly 3-10%, and between-subject variance in VT is larger, so only a very large effect (>10-15%) could reach significance. Animal data suggest modest synaptogenesis after psychedelics, but human SV2A PET after psilocybin has so far shown small or null changes at one week. Objective outcome removes the expectancy/unblinding advantage that inflates psilocybin symptom trials. Pilot small-sample effects are noisy; a nominally significant regional finding is possible via multiple regions (hippocampus, DLPFC, whole brain), which keeps probability above floor. Most likely: non-significant, small positive point estimate described as exploratory. Moderator: none detectable; if anything aMCI participants (lower baseline hippocampal SV2A, more room to rise) might show a slightly larger change, but n=6 vs n=4 split over two drug arms gives no power to show it
3	0.08	null	-6 to 8	Pilot with ~5 psilocybin vs ~5 placebo, split across aMCI and healthy strata; power is negligible for the few-percent SV2A changes plausible from rodent plasticity work. Objective PET outcome removes expectancy/unblinding advantages that inflate psychedelic symptom trials. Prior human SV2A PET after psilocybin in healthy adults did not show robust group-level increases, and SynVesT-1 VT test-retest variability (~5-10%) rivals any plausible effect. Primary completion 2026-07 with no report yet; small exploratory PET studies usually report null or trend-level, perhaps regional, findings. Small chance of a nominally significant regional result (e.g., hippocampus) counted as primary. Moderator: none detectable; if anything, aMCI participants (lower baseline hippocampal SV2A) might show slightly larger change, but n=10 across four arms cannot resolve it
4	0.10	null	-6 to 9	Pilot with N=10 split across four arms (about 5 psilocybin vs 5 placebo), so power is very low for anything short of a large effect. The outcome is an objective PET measure with test-retest variability of roughly 5-10%, which blinding problems and expectancy cannot inflate. Pig studies have shown SV2A increases after psilocybin, but human SV2A PET after a single dose has generally shown no clear change, and effects from animal studies tend to shrink in humans. The scan comes one week after the second dose, so any rise would be small. The most likely report is a null primary result, possibly with a nominal regional trend described as exploratory. Publication lag also lowers the chance of a clean positive result. Moderator: none detectable; if anything aMCI participants show a slightly larger relative increase because of baseline synaptic loss, but n=6 vs 4 cannot resolve it
5	0.12	null	-6 to 9	Pilot with N=10 split over four arms (~5 psilocybin vs ~5 placebo), objective PET outcome where expectancy/unblinding cannot inflate the effect. Preclinical pig data showed modest (~5%) SV2A increases after psilocybin; human SV2A PET after a single dose in healthy adults has not shown clear increases one week later. Test-retest variability of SV2A VT is ~5-10%, so a plausible true effect of a few percent is far below detection power at this sample size. Objective-outcome and small-pilot base rates point to a null or nonsignificant trend; small chance of a nominally significant regional finding via multiple regions (hippocampus, DLPFC). Moderator: aMCI participants may show a slightly larger increase than healthy participants (lower baseline synaptic density leaves more room for change), but with ~2-3 per cell no reliable moderator difference will be detectable; forecast none.

Framework forecasters: mean 0.12

Run	p	Direction	90% interval	Reasoning
1	0.12	favours intervention	-6 to 12	The framework treats psychedelics as relaxing belief precision (PM-0028, PM-0401) and holds that belief is written in tissue that changes slowly, not never (PM-0061, PM-0062). One saturated session can book heavily (PM-0092), so a small directional rise in synaptic density is plausible. But SV2A density is a level-4 biomarker, the outcome class the framework expects to move least (PM-0086, PM-0372), and the rodent spinogenesis signal is modest and may not carry to human PET a week later. With N=10 split across four arms (about 5 vs 5), even a real 5% effect is far below detectable given test-retest variability. As a pilot, the report may also be only descriptive. So significant support is unlikely. Moderator: aMCI participants may show a slightly larger relative rise (more lost synaptic density to recover, lower baseline), but with 6 vs 4 participants split across arms no moderator difference will be detectable; effectively none. Claims cited (7) PM-0028 Drugs, including psychedelics, change how firmly beliefs are held. PM-0401 Psychedelics loosen the grip of high-level expectations, which amounts to loosening beliefs. PM-0062 Deeply ingrained beliefs are harder but not impossible to change. PM-0061 Repeated experience makes a response automatic. PM-0372 A treatment built on a false theory still produced measurable bodily effects because patients believed in it. PM-0092 How much an experience changes belief or skill depends on the attention paid, not on elapsed time. PM-0086 The brain actively constructs perceived colour, depth and continuity, including filling in the retinal blind spot.
2	0.12	favours intervention	-6 to 12	The framework equates belief strength with synaptic connection strength (PM-0058) and says psychedelics relax prior precision (PM-0028, PM-0401), so it leans toward a plastic, positive direction. But tissue changes slowly (PM-0062); structure forms through repeated booking (PM-0061), not two doses plus one week. SV2A density is a level-4 biomarker, the outcome class the framework expects to move least (PM-0372 is precedent, not a guarantee). The decisive factor is statistical: N=10 across four arms, roughly 5 vs 5, with PET test-retest variability around 5-10%. A plausible true effect of a few percent is very unlikely to reach p<0.05. I expect a small positive, non-significant point estimate, framed as exploratory. Moderator: aMCI participants may show a slightly larger relative increase (more lost synaptic density to restore), but with ~6 vs ~4 participants no subgroup difference will be detectable; effectively none. Claims cited (6) PM-0028 Drugs, including psychedelics, change how firmly beliefs are held. PM-0401 Psychedelics loosen the grip of high-level expectations, which amounts to loosening beliefs. PM-0058 The strength of a belief is physically the strength of synaptic connections. PM-0062 Deeply ingrained beliefs are harder but not impossible to change. PM-0061 Repeated experience makes a response automatic. PM-0372 A treatment built on a false theory still produced measurable bodily effects because patients believed in it.
3	0.10	favours intervention	-6 to 10	The framework ties belief strength to synaptic connection strength (PM-0058) and says psychedelics act on prior precision (PM-0028, PM-0401), so a small positive shift in synaptic density is directionally plausible. But this is a level-4 biomarker outcome, and the framework says tissue changes slowly, by repeated booking (PM-0061, PM-0062); two doses with no integration practice give little repeated booking. Physiology effects are possible (PM-0372) but smallest where perception is not involved. Decisively, N=10 across four arms (about 5 vs 5 for the pooled contrast) gives negligible power for a modest PET change with typical SynVesT-1 test-retest variability; significance is unlikely. Moderator: Weak tendency for healthy participants to show larger change: tissue is 'slower to change, not impossible', and a less degraded substrate should rebook more readily than aMCI tissue; with ~2-3 per cell no moderator effect is detectable. Claims cited (7) PM-0028 Drugs, including psychedelics, change how firmly beliefs are held. PM-0401 Psychedelics loosen the grip of high-level expectations, which amounts to loosening beliefs. PM-0058 The strength of a belief is physically the strength of synaptic connections. PM-0061 Repeated experience makes a response automatic. PM-0062 Deeply ingrained beliefs are harder but not impossible to change. PM-0372 A treatment built on a false theory still produced measurable bodily effects because patients believed in it. PM-0147 Heavily practised skills and beliefs survive decades without use.
4	0.12	favours intervention	-8 to 14	The framework treats psilocybin as relaxing prior precision and opening the gate (PM-0028, PM-0401, PM-0369), and holds that belief balances are physically connection strength written in tissue that is slow but not impossible to change (PM-0058, PM-0062); one saturated session can book heavily (PM-0092). So a small positive shift in synaptic density is directionally consistent. But the framework expects smaller effects on biomarkers than on felt outcomes (PM-0086, PM-0372), and this is a 10-person, four-arm pilot measuring PET VT one week post-dose with high between-subject variance. Statistical significance against placebo is unlikely even if a true few-percent increase exists. Moderator: aMCI participants may show a slightly larger rise (lower baseline density leaves room, and deeper need for restructuring), but with 6 vs 4 participants no reliable moderator difference is expected; effectively none. Claims cited (8) PM-0028 Drugs, including psychedelics, change how firmly beliefs are held. PM-0401 Psychedelics loosen the grip of high-level expectations, which amounts to loosening beliefs. PM-0369 When critical thinking is suspended by trance, ritual, rhythm or drugs, suggested beliefs are adopted without resistance. PM-0062 Deeply ingrained beliefs are harder but not impossible to change. PM-0058 The strength of a belief is physically the strength of synaptic connections. PM-0372 A treatment built on a false theory still produced measurable bodily effects because patients believed in it. PM-0086 The brain actively constructs perceived colour, depth and continuity, including filling in the retinal blind spot. PM-0092 How much an experience changes belief or skill depends on the attention paid, not on elapsed time.
5	0.12	favours intervention	-6 to 12	The framework equates belief balance with synaptic connection strength (PM-0058) and says psychedelics relax high-level priors (PM-0401, PM-0028), with one saturated session booking heavily (PM-0092), so it leans toward a positive direction. But the outcome is a level-4 biomarker, beyond the render layer where effects are largest (PM-0372), and tissue changes slowly (PM-0062). Animal work shows psilocybin spinogenesis and prior SV2A PET in pigs hinted at small increases, yet one-week post-dose human effects are likely a few percent. With N=10 split into four arms (about 5 vs 5 on the drug contrast) and PET test-retest variability of ~5-10%, a significant difference is improbable. Moderator: Healthy participants may show a slightly cleaner increase; aMCI tissue with ongoing synaptic loss is slower to rewrite, but with n=6 vs 4 split across drug/placebo no moderator difference will be detectable. Claims cited (6) PM-0058 The strength of a belief is physically the strength of synaptic connections. PM-0062 Deeply ingrained beliefs are harder but not impossible to change. PM-0092 How much an experience changes belief or skill depends on the attention paid, not on elapsed time. PM-0401 Psychedelics loosen the grip of high-level expectations, which amounts to loosening beliefs. PM-0028 Drugs, including psychedelics, change how firmly beliefs are held. PM-0372 A treatment built on a false theory still produced measurable bodily effects because patients believed in it.

Psilocybin Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain

NCT05351541 · Joshua Woolley, MD, PhD · enrollment 30 · registry status active not recruiting · protocol file

Hypothesis. Pain interference (Brief Pain Inventory interference subscale) falls from baseline to 1 month after the psilocybin session in people with chronic low back pain.

Counts as supported if: Supported if the report shows a statistically significant reduction in BPI interference from baseline to 1 month across participants (all arms pooled, or in the psilocybin + placebo arm if that is the only one reported). Differences between add-on arms (zolpidem, modafinil) are the moderator, not the primary hypothesis.
Effect metric: Mean change in BPI interference, 0-70 scale, baseline to 1 month (positive = reduction).

Baseline forecasters: mean 0.83

Run	p	Direction	90% interval	Reasoning
1	0.84	favours intervention	3 to 20	Hypothesis is pooled within-subject pre-post change with every participant receiving psilocybin plus preparation and integration therapy; no untreated control. Primer: single-arm pre-post self-report symptom outcomes almost always improve significantly (regression to the mean, expectancy, unblinded psychedelic). Participants are treatment-refractory chronic low back pain patients enrolled when motivated; BPI interference is self-report and mood-sensitive. With n~30 and plausible within-subject d of 0.6-1.0, power is high. Risks: dose range down to 1 mg in some participants, amnestic zolpidem arms diluting effect, dropout, chronic-pain outcomes responding less, or a report focusing on arm comparisons. Expect ~8-12 point mean reduction from a baseline near 30-40. Moderator: Placebo add-on (and modafinil) arms show larger reductions than zolpidem-containing arms, because zolpidem's sedative and amnestic effects likely blunt encoding and recall of the psychedelic experience; with ~7 per arm, differences will not be significant.
2	0.83	favours intervention	3 to 20	Every participant gets open psilocybin plus therapy, so the pooled primary is effectively a single-arm pre-post test on a self-reported outcome, where significant improvement is very likely (primer 1.6, Step 2: often >90%) due to regression to the mean, expectancy and functional unblinding. Treatment-refractory CLBP baseline BPI interference is likely ~30-40/70; a 1-month reduction of ~8-12 points is plausible. Discounts: small n (~30, with dropout), chronic-pain outcomes respond less to expectancy, dose range 1-30 mg may include sub-therapeutic doses, and zolpidem add-on may blunt effects, widening variance. Also slight risk the report emphasises between-arm comparisons or is underpowered pooled. Moderator: none detectable; n~30 split over four add-on arms leaves roughly 7 per arm, far too few to show differences. If anything, zolpidem-containing arms may show slightly smaller reductions if sedation blunts the acute psychedelic experience.
3	0.84	favours intervention	2 to 20	Resolution is effectively a pooled pre-post test: every participant gets psilocybin with therapy support, the outcome is self-reported, and enrolment of treatment-refractory patients invites regression to the mean. The primer puts single-arm symptom pre-post significance above 90%. Functional unblinding and expectancy toward psilocybin add to within-person change. Deductions: small n (~30, possibly fewer completers), chronic pain outcomes respond less to expectancy than acute ones, variable doses (1-30 mg) may dilute effect, sedative/stimulant add-ons may alter experience, and the report may emphasise between-arm contrasts or pain intensity over pooled BPI interference. Expected reduction roughly 8-10 points on a baseline near 30. Moderator: none detectable; with ~7 per arm, add-on differences will be underpowered. If anything, zolpidem arms may show slightly smaller reductions (blunted/less-remembered acute experience), modafinil arms similar to placebo.
4	0.80	favours intervention	3 to 20	Resolution is effectively a pooled pre-post test: every participant gets psilocybin with therapy, the outcome is self-reported, participants are unblinded to psilocybin effects, and regression to the mean plus expectancy in treatment-refractory chronic pain usually produce significant within-group improvement (primer 1.6: single-arm pre-post symptom outcomes are significant >90% of the time). Offsets: n~30 with dropout, chronic pain expectation effects are smaller, single-dose effects fade by 1 month, variable dose (1-30 mg) may dilute, and the report might emphasise between-arm comparisons or not report a pooled test. Expected reduction roughly 8-12 points from a baseline near 30-40. Moderator: none detectable; with ~30 participants split over four add-on arms (~7 each) no reliable difference is expected. If any trend, zolpidem arms may show slightly smaller reductions (sedation blunting the acute experience/memory) and modafinil arms no different from placebo.
5	0.85	favours intervention	3 to 20	The primary hypothesis is a pooled pre-post change and every participant gets psilocybin with preparation and integration therapy, so it works like a single-arm study. It is an open-label-like, self-reported chronic pain outcome in people who enrolled at a symptomatic peak, so regression to the mean, expectancy and therapy contact all push toward a significant drop. The primer puts the base rate for single-arm pre-post studies above 90%. I shade it down because the sample is small (about 30), doses vary from 1 to 30 mg, some arms add drugs that may dampen the effect, and dropouts could matter. I expect a baseline BPI interference of about 30-40 and a mean reduction of about 10 points. Moderator: Probably none detectable with about 30 participants split four ways (roughly 7 per arm). If anything, the zolpidem-containing arms may show smaller reductions, because sedation may blunt the acute psychedelic experience, while modafinil is unlikely to change the size of the reduction.

Framework forecasters: mean 0.81

Run	p	Direction	90% interval	Reasoning
1	0.82	favours intervention	3 to 18	Every participant gets psilocybin, preparation and integration in a clinical setting, which the framework reads as a chemical bypass relaxing high-level priors plus therapist authority: two doors at once. Pain interference is a render-layer, self-rated outcome that belief reaches most easily, and 1 month is early enough that a single high-impact session still dominates before fade by starvation. The within-subject pre-post design, with no untreated control and no blinding of the psilocybin itself, adds expectation and regression to the mean. With N of about 30, a moderate drop of about 8-12 points should reach significance. Risks: small sample, variable 1-30 mg dosing, and zolpidem arms blunting the experience. Moderator: Modafinil (alone or placebo add-on) arms respond more; zolpidem arms respond less. Zolpidem sedates and dulls attention and post-session consolidation, cutting the impact term of the session, while modafinil keeps attention high during the window. Claims cited (11) PM-0401 Psychedelics loosen the grip of high-level expectations, which amounts to loosening beliefs. PM-0369 When critical thinking is suspended by trance, ritual, rhythm or drugs, suggested beliefs are adopted without resistance. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-0092 How much an experience changes belief or skill depends on the attention paid, not on elapsed time. PM-0485 A belief depends on the surrounding social setting as much as on its content. PM-0126 Messages that combine authority with aesthetic appeal change beliefs more than those using either alone. PM-0109 Emotional arousal occurring shortly after learning strengthens memory for what was learned. PM-0132 At the transitions into and out of sleep, when people are attentive but not critical, they are especially open to adopting new beliefs. PM-0946 Short intensive belief-change seminars do not produce lasting change because the everyday environment keeps re-installing the old beliefs. PM-0146 Beliefs fade when reinforcement stops, not because they are refuted. PM-0990 Beliefs or meanings given without effort hold weakly; those verified through one's own tested action hold strongly.
2	0.80	favours intervention	3 to 20	The primary test is an uncontrolled within-subject change: every participant gets psilocybin in a supportive therapeutic setting with preparation and integration. The framework treats psilocybin as a chemical backdoor that relaxes high-level priors, delivered as a high-impact session whose intensity outweighs duration, in a setting that is itself causal. Pain interference is a self-rated, render-layer outcome where belief acts most, and the Prover reads ambiguous bodily signals as improvement. Add expectancy and regression to the mean in treatment-refractory recruits, and a significant pooled reduction at 1 month is likely despite n~30. Risks: small sample, low-dose participants, reporting that focuses on arm contrasts, and recency-driven fade by 1 month. Moderator: Psilocybin + placebo and psilocybin + modafinil arms reduce interference more than zolpidem-containing arms: zolpidem sedates and blunts attention and encoding, lowering the impact term of the session's mana pricing, while modafinil preserves attention. Claims cited (11) PM-0401 Psychedelics loosen the grip of high-level expectations, which amounts to loosening beliefs. PM-0369 When critical thinking is suspended by trance, ritual, rhythm or drugs, suggested beliefs are adopted without resistance. PM-0092 How much an experience changes belief or skill depends on the attention paid, not on elapsed time. PM-0110 Intense negative and intense positive experiences are both remembered more strongly than mildly positive or negative ones. PM-0090 The effect of an experience on a belief is the product of attention paid, the person's prior attitude toward the topic and source, and perceived social approval. PM-0107 Emotionally impactful events raise arousal, which captures attention, which strengthens memory encoding. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-0485 A belief depends on the surrounding social setting as much as on its content. PM-0159 People interpret ambiguous events in whatever way supports their existing beliefs. PM-0104 A recent exposure influences a belief more than many older exposures. PM-0988 Psychedelics reduce default-mode network activity while increasing the intensity and felt significance of experience.
3	0.80	favours intervention	2 to 20	The primary test is effectively a pooled pre-post change in a self-rated felt outcome after a single psilocybin session with preparation and integration, in a therapeutic setting. The framework treats psychedelics as a critical-faculty bypass that relaxes priors, and one saturated session as a heavy write; setting is causal; pain interference sits at the render layer and is self-reported, where the Prover reads ambiguous signals as improvement. Add regression to the mean and expectancy in an unblinded-to-psilocybin sample and a significant pooled drop at 1 month is likely even with n~30. Risks: variable dosing (1 mg floor), zolpidem blunting, small n, and fade by 1 month without daily verification. Moderator: Psilocybin + placebo (and modafinil) arms respond more than zolpidem-containing arms: zolpidem sedation blunts attention and the intensity of the session, lowering the impact term that makes the single session a deep write; pain interference is a felt, self-rated outcome that the render layer reaches. Claims cited (11) PM-0369 When critical thinking is suspended by trance, ritual, rhythm or drugs, suggested beliefs are adopted without resistance. PM-0401 Psychedelics loosen the grip of high-level expectations, which amounts to loosening beliefs. PM-0092 How much an experience changes belief or skill depends on the attention paid, not on elapsed time. PM-0090 The effect of an experience on a belief is the product of attention paid, the person's prior attitude toward the topic and source, and perceived social approval. PM-0485 A belief depends on the surrounding social setting as much as on its content. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-0159 People interpret ambiguous events in whatever way supports their existing beliefs. PM-0146 Beliefs fade when reinforcement stops, not because they are refuted. PM-0946 Short intensive belief-change seminars do not produce lasting change because the everyday environment keeps re-installing the old beliefs. PM-0104 A recent exposure influences a belief more than many older exposures. PM-0110 Intense negative and intense positive experiences are both remembered more strongly than mildly positive or negative ones.
4	0.80	favours intervention	2 to 18	Every arm receives psilocybin in a supportive, therapist-led setting with preparation and integration: a chemical backdoor that relaxes priors (PM-0401, PM-0369), a high-impact session (PM-0092, PM-0110), authority and setting (PM-0361, PM-0485). Pain interference is a render-layer, self-rated outcome that belief reaches directly (PM-1286, PM-1346), and the Prover reads ambiguous bodily signals as improvement (PM-0159). A pooled pre-post comparison with n~30, uncontrolled for expectancy and regression to the mean, should show a significant drop at 1 month, before starvation-driven fade (PM-0146, PM-0946). Risks: small sample, low doses in some participants, zolpidem blunting attention (PM-0090, PM-0107), dropout. Moderator: Psilocybin + placebo and psilocybin + modafinil arms reduce interference more than the zolpidem-containing arms: zolpidem sedates and blunts attention and encoding during the session, shrinking the attention and impact terms of mana pricing, while modafinil preserves attention. Claims cited (13) PM-0401 Psychedelics loosen the grip of high-level expectations, which amounts to loosening beliefs. PM-0369 When critical thinking is suspended by trance, ritual, rhythm or drugs, suggested beliefs are adopted without resistance. PM-0090 The effect of an experience on a belief is the product of attention paid, the person's prior attitude toward the topic and source, and perceived social approval. PM-0092 How much an experience changes belief or skill depends on the attention paid, not on elapsed time. PM-0110 Intense negative and intense positive experiences are both remembered more strongly than mildly positive or negative ones. PM-0107 Emotionally impactful events raise arousal, which captures attention, which strengthens memory encoding. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-1346 Bodily installed beliefs cannot be undone by argument. PM-0485 A belief depends on the surrounding social setting as much as on its content. PM-0361 Trust in the speaker reduces the listener's critical scrutiny of what is said next. PM-0159 People interpret ambiguous events in whatever way supports their existing beliefs. PM-0146 Beliefs fade when reinforcement stops, not because they are refuted. PM-0946 Short intensive belief-change seminars do not produce lasting change because the everyday environment keeps re-installing the old beliefs.
5	0.84	favours intervention	3 to 20	Every participant gets psilocybin with preparation and integration from trusted clinicians: a chemical backdoor that relaxes high-level priors plus authority and setting, two doors at once, in a charged single session. Pain interference is a felt, self-rated render-layer outcome, where belief acts most directly, and the Prover reads ambiguous bodily signals as improvement once 'I am getting better' is installed; unblinded-to-drug expectancy adds a confirming entry. With no untreated control, pre-post change also absorbs regression to the mean in treatment-refractory recruits. At 1 month recency still favours the impact-driven effect. n~30 gives adequate power for a within-subject change; main risk is dropout, sub-therapeutic doses, or reporting only between-arm contrasts. Moderator: Modafinil-containing arms (without zolpidem) reduce interference more and zolpidem arms less: mana value scales with attention, so a sedative that blunts attention and memory of the session books a shallower write, while a wakefulness agent keeps the saturated hour attended and recalled. Claims cited (11) PM-0090 The effect of an experience on a belief is the product of attention paid, the person's prior attitude toward the topic and source, and perceived social approval. PM-0092 How much an experience changes belief or skill depends on the attention paid, not on elapsed time. PM-0110 Intense negative and intense positive experiences are both remembered more strongly than mildly positive or negative ones. PM-0401 Psychedelics loosen the grip of high-level expectations, which amounts to loosening beliefs. PM-0485 A belief depends on the surrounding social setting as much as on its content. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-0159 People interpret ambiguous events in whatever way supports their existing beliefs. PM-0138 Hearing a trusted authority confirm an existing belief strengthens that belief disproportionately. PM-0361 Trust in the speaker reduces the listener's critical scrutiny of what is said next. PM-0126 Messages that combine authority with aesthetic appeal change beliefs more than those using either alone. PM-0457 Blinded tests showed that believing an object was magnetised, not actual magnetism, produced convulsive crises.

Effect of Anticipated Pain on Corticospinal Excitability

NCT07407595 · Universite du Littoral Cote d'Opale · enrollment 44 · registry status active not recruiting · protocol file

Hypothesis. Being told that an inert cream will cause pain changes corticospinal excitability (TMS input-output curves) relative to being told the cream is inactive.

Counts as supported if: Supported if the report finds a significant group x time difference in corticospinal excitability (any registered I/O curve parameter used as primary) between the pain-expectation and neutral-information groups, in either direction.
Effect metric: Cohen's d for the between-group difference in change in excitability from baseline to post-cream (positive = excitability increases more, or falls less, in the pain-expectation group). The sign is part of the forecast.

Baseline forecasters: mean 0.33

Run	p	Direction	90% interval	Reasoning
1	0.35	other: small and uncertain in sign; slight lean toward reduced excitability (lower plateau/slope) in the pain-expectation group	-0.8 to 0.6	Small (44 total, ~22/arm), unblinded, single-lab TMS study with an objective, noisy outcome (MEP I/O curves). Expectation effects largely vanish on objective measures (OLP objective SMD ~0.09), and a verbal-only nocebo manipulation without actual pain is weak; FDI measured while cream is on the forearm. Pre-registered psychology base rate ~44%. Power for d~0.4 at n=22/arm is ~25%. Offsetting upward: three Boltzmann parameters and two post time points give multiple chances for a significant group x time effect, and threat-of-pain literature reports modulation (often MEP suppression). Direction ambiguous in the literature, so the interval spans zero with a slight lean negative. Moderator: Higher pain catastrophizing / kinesiophobia participants may show larger excitability changes because threat appraisal is stronger, but with n=22 per arm no moderator effect is likely to be significant; effectively none detectable.
2	0.35	favours control	-0.85 to 0.45	Small (n=44, ~22/arm) unblinded single-session lab study with an objective neurophysiological outcome. Nocebo effects are reliable on self-report but expectation effects on objective outcomes are much smaller (OLP objective ~0.09). TMS MEP data are noisy, so power for a realistic d of ~0.3-0.5 in a group x time interaction is low. Prior literature on pain anticipation/threat tends to show reduced corticospinal excitability in hand muscles, so the likely sign is negative. Offsetting factors: three I/O parameters and two post time points give several chances for a significant result ('any registered parameter'), and small lab studies often report something significant. Pre-registered psychology base rate ~44%; adjusted down for power and objective outcome, up slightly for multiplicity. Moderator: Higher pain catastrophizing / kinesiophobia participants may show larger MEP suppression, as threat appraisal amplifies anticipatory motor inhibition; but with n=22 per arm any moderator test will be underpowered and likely null.
3	0.30	null	-0.6 to 0.6	Small (n=44, ~22/arm) unblinded single-lab basic-science study with an objective neurophysiological outcome (TMS I/O curves), where expectation effects are typically small (objective outcomes ~0.1 in placebo literature). MEPs are noisy; power for d<0.8 is poor. Direction is theoretically ambiguous: anxiety/threat can raise excitability, while pain anticipation often inhibits motor output in the threatened limb. Two-sided rule and three Boltzmann parameters at two time points give some forking-path chance of a significant group x time effect, raising probability above pure power. Pre-registered-experiment base rate ~44%, adjusted down for objective outcome and low power. Moderator: Possibly larger shifts in high pain-catastrophizing/kinesiophobia participants, since threat appraisal should scale with these traits; but with 22 per arm any moderator test will be underpowered and likely inconclusive.
4	0.33	favours control	-0.95 to 0.55	Verbal-suggestion nocebo reliably moves self-reported pain, but expectation effects on objective outcomes are much smaller (OLP objective ~0.09). TMS I/O curves are noisy; with 22 per arm, 80% power requires d ~0.85. Pre-registered lab studies succeed ~44%; objective outcome lowers this. Flexibility (three Boltzmann parameters, two post time points, either direction) raises the chance of some significant group x time interaction. Prior experimental pain-threat literature leans toward reduced MEP amplitude in hand muscles during anticipation, so slight lean to negative d. Unmasked design and no actual nociception keep the expected effect modest. Moderator: Higher pain catastrophizing / kinesiophobia participants may show larger excitability change (stronger threat appraisal), but with ~22 per arm this moderation will not be reliably detectable.
5	0.33	other: small and uncertain, slight lean toward reduced excitability (negative d) in the pain-expectation group	-0.9 to 0.5	Small parallel RCT (n=44, ~22/arm), unblinded, single session, objective neurophysiological outcome (TMS I/O curves) with high between-subject and trial-to-trial variability. Primer: expectation/placebo effects shrink toward zero on objective outcomes (OLP objective SMD ~0.09); pre-registered experiments succeed ~44%. Verbal nocebo suggestion without conditioning or real pain, and the target muscle (FDI) is not the cream site, weakening any specific effect. Offsetting: resolution counts any of three Boltzmann parameters at two time points, giving multiplicity and forking paths that raise the chance of some significant interaction. Pain-anticipation literature leans toward MEP suppression, so a slight negative lean. Net probability about one in three. Moderator: Higher pain catastrophizing/kinesiophobia participants may show larger (more inhibitory) changes, since threat appraisal amplifies anticipatory motor adaptation; but with n=22 per arm this moderation will be underpowered and likely non-significant.

Framework forecasters: mean 0.36

Run	p	Direction	90% interval	Reasoning
1	0.35	favours control	-0.95 to 0.45	The framework predicts threat information is priced fastest and heaviest, especially from an authoritative experimenter, so a pain-expectation instruction should write a real anticipatory state. But the outcome is a level-4 motor-physiology biomarker (MEP I/O curves in a hand muscle), which the framework expects to move less than felt symptoms, and an adjacent outcome (HRV, apprehension) may move instead. General knowledge: pain anticipation tends to produce motor inhibition (lower MEPs), but n=44 split 22/22 with noisy between-subject TMS I/O parameters gives low power for a group x time interaction; multiple parameters and timepoints add some flexibility. Net: a modest negative effect, probably non-significant. Moderator: Higher pain catastrophizing / kinesiophobia participants respond more: fear raises the credibility and weight of the threat message, and aroused receivers mint larger manas, so the anticipatory write is heavier in them. Claims cited (7) PM-0585 Threatening information is processed faster and weighs more than positive information. PM-0845 Feeling afraid makes threatening information seem more believable. PM-0601 Messages have larger effects on emotionally aroused receivers. PM-0124 The same message changes beliefs more when it comes from an authority than from a stranger. PM-0372 A treatment built on a false theory still produced measurable bodily effects because patients believed in it. PM-0086 The brain actively constructs perceived colour, depth and continuity, including filling in the retinal blind spot. PM-0289 Outcomes of affirmations match their literal wording rather than the intention behind them.
2	0.35	favours control	-0.95 to 0.35	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). Moderator: 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. Claims cited (7) PM-0585 Threatening information is processed faster and weighs more than positive information. PM-0845 Feeling afraid makes threatening information seem more believable. PM-0601 Messages have larger effects on emotionally aroused receivers. PM-0124 The same message changes beliefs more when it comes from an authority than from a stranger. PM-0372 A treatment built on a false theory still produced measurable bodily effects because patients believed in it. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-0086 The brain actively constructs perceived colour, depth and continuity, including filling in the retinal blind spot.
3	0.35	favours control	-0.95 to 0.45	The framework prices threat heaviest and fear amplifies it, so an authoritative pain warning should render a real anticipatory state; Mesmer-style somatic effects imply body-level change is possible. But corticospinal excitability of FDI is a level-4 physiological outcome beyond the felt render layer, and the adjacent outcome (apprehension, HRV) may move instead of the named one. Literature on pain anticipation tends to show motor inhibition (reduced MEPs), so the sign leans negative. With n=44 between-groups, noisy Boltzmann parameters, unmasked design and no real pain, power is low; multiple parameters and timepoints add some chance of a significant interaction. Moderator: Higher pain catastrophizing / kinesiophobia participants respond more (larger excitability drop), because fear raises the credibility and weight of the threat message and arousal enlarges the entry. Claims cited (7) PM-0585 Threatening information is processed faster and weighs more than positive information. PM-0845 Feeling afraid makes threatening information seem more believable. PM-0601 Messages have larger effects on emotionally aroused receivers. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-0372 A treatment built on a false theory still produced measurable bodily effects because patients believed in it. PM-0289 Outcomes of affirmations match their literal wording rather than the intention behind them. PM-0086 The brain actively constructs perceived colour, depth and continuity, including filling in the retinal blind spot.
4	0.33	favours control	-1.0 to 0.4	The framework predicts threat information from an authoritative experimenter is priced heavily (PM-0585, PM-0124), especially in fearful receivers (PM-0845, PM-0601), so an anticipatory nocebo state should form. But corticospinal excitability is a level-4 physiological outcome beyond the render layer (PM-1286, PM-0372), and an adjacent outcome (HRV, self-reported apprehension) may move instead (PM-0289). General knowledge: pain anticipation tends to suppress MEPs (protective motor inhibition), yet TMS I/O curves are noisy, n=22 per arm, unmasked, three parameters and three time points. A significant group x time interaction is plausible but less likely than not; the most likely direction is reduced excitability in the pain-expectation group. Moderator: Higher pain catastrophizing / kinesiophobia participants show larger excitability change, because fear raises the credibility and weight of the threat message and arousal mints a larger entry. Claims cited (7) PM-0585 Threatening information is processed faster and weighs more than positive information. PM-0845 Feeling afraid makes threatening information seem more believable. PM-0601 Messages have larger effects on emotionally aroused receivers. PM-0124 The same message changes beliefs more when it comes from an authority than from a stranger. PM-0372 A treatment built on a false theory still produced measurable bodily effects because patients believed in it. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-0289 Outcomes of affirmations match their literal wording rather than the intention behind them.
5	0.40	favours control	-1.0 to 0.5	Framework: threat weighs heaviest and fear/emotional priming bypass the check, so an authoritative pain-expectation message should write a real anticipatory state; belief reaching physiology is a level-4 extension (Mesmer precedent), weaker than felt outcomes. Outcomes may move on an adjacent measure (HRV, SICI) rather than the named one. General knowledge: threat-of-pain paradigms tend to suppress corticospinal excitability, so a decrease in the expectation group is the likelier sign. But n=44, unmasked, noisy TMS I/O curves, and a single verbal manipulation make a significant group x time effect uncertain; multiple I/O parameters and two time points raise the chance something reaches p<0.05. Moderation by catastrophizing/fear predicted, though underpowered. Moderator: Higher pain catastrophizing / kinesiophobia participants respond more: fear raises the credibility and weight of the threat message, giving a heavier write. Claims cited (8) PM-0585 Threatening information is processed faster and weighs more than positive information. PM-0845 Feeling afraid makes threatening information seem more believable. PM-0844 Inducing emotion before presenting content is the most reliable way to get a claim past critical evaluation. PM-0601 Messages have larger effects on emotionally aroused receivers. PM-0124 The same message changes beliefs more when it comes from an authority than from a stranger. PM-0372 A treatment built on a false theory still produced measurable bodily effects because patients believed in it. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-0289 Outcomes of affirmations match their literal wording rather than the intention behind them.

Showers and Stress

NCT07611422 · Catholic University of the Sacred Heart · enrollment 120 · registry status recruiting · protocol file

Hypothesis. Participants who receive positive information about the benefits of their shower routine report lower perceived stress (PSS-10) at 4 weeks than participants who receive no rationale (main effect of the expectancy factor, across cold and warm showers).

Counts as supported if: Supported if the report shows a statistically significant main effect of the expectancy factor on PSS-10 at 4 weeks (or a significant expectancy x time interaction on PSS-10) favouring positive information. The cold-shower main effect does not count.
Effect metric: Cohen's d for positive-information vs neutral-information on PSS-10 at 4 weeks (positive = less stress with positive information).

Baseline forecasters: mean 0.16

Run	p	Direction	90% interval	Reasoning
1	0.15	null	-0.2 to 0.45	Brief one-time verbal rationale, outcome is a trait-like 1-month recall measure (PSS-10) in healthy volunteers 4 weeks later. Primer: expectation effects are largest for short, acute self-reports and small for chronic outcomes weeks later; OLP non-clinical self-report ~0.29. Realistic d ~0.1-0.2. With ~60 per expectancy level (less after attrition), power for d=0.2 is ~20%. Pre-registered base rate ~44%, adjusted sharply down for power. Some upside from self-report outcome, participant-only masking, snowball-recruited sample possibly receptive, and multiple analysis routes (main effect or interaction with time) counted as success. Moderator: Expectancy effect, if any, slightly larger in the cold-shower arms: the rationale is more credible and salient for an unusual, effortful practice, and cold exposure gives a vivid bodily cue that reinforces the suggestion; warm-shower 'benefits' framing is less believable. Interaction unlikely to reach significance.
2	0.15	null	-0.2 to 0.45	A one-time verbal rationale aimed at a 4-week trait-like self-report (PSS-10, one-month recall) in healthy volunteers is the weak case for expectation effects: the primer notes suggestion effects are large for acute outcomes but small for chronic ones weeks later, and OLP effects in non-clinical samples are about 0.29. Realistic d is roughly 0.1-0.2. With ~60 per expectancy level, power to detect d=0.2 is about 15-20%. Snowball sampling, low baseline stress (floor effects), daily diaries that may prompt reflection in all arms, and pre-registered-study base rates (~44%) further discount. Some upside from self-report and single-blind demand characteristics, and possible lenient reporting via interaction terms. Moderator: Slightly larger expectancy effect in the cold-shower arm, because a stress-resilience rationale is more credible and salient for a novel, effortful cold exposure than for routine warm showers; interaction itself unlikely to be significant at n=120.
3	0.18	favours intervention	-0.2 to 0.45	Single verbal expectancy manipulation, healthy volunteers, outcome is PSS-10 (one-month recall trait-like stress) four weeks later. Primer: expectation effects are large for acute self-report but small for chronic/delayed outcomes; OLP in non-clinical samples ~0.29 and likely smaller for a one-off rationale. Realistic d ~0.1-0.2. With ~60 per expectancy level, power to detect d=0.2 is ~20%. Snowball sample, low baseline stress limits room for change. Participants are single-masked but the rationale is salient, favouring small self-report shifts. Alternate path via expectancy x time interaction adds a little. Pre-registered psychology base rate ~44% adjusted down for power. Estimate ~0.18. Moderator: Expectancy effect slightly larger in the cold-shower arm, where a plausible, widely publicised stress-resilience rationale and a salient daily ritual reinforce the suggestion; the warm-shower rationale is less credible. Interaction unlikely to reach significance at n=120.
4	0.15	null	-0.25 to 0.45	A single verbal rationale delivered once is a weak expectation manipulation aimed at a chronic, month-recall self-report outcome (PSS-10) four weeks later in healthy, non-stressed volunteers; the primer puts such effects as small at best (verbal suggestion is large only for acute outcomes, OLP non-clinical ~0.29, general placebo ~0.23). A realistic d of ~0.1-0.2 with ~60 per expectancy level gives power around 10-20%. Snowball recruitment, self-administered showers and uncertain compliance add noise. Slight upward allowance for self-report, an expectancy x time interaction path, and flexible analysis in a small academic study, but the likeliest report is a non-significant expectancy effect. Moderator: Expectancy effect slightly larger in the cold-shower arms, because a salient, effortful, novel practice paired with a resilience rationale is more credible than the same rationale for ordinary warm showers; the interaction test will be underpowered and likely non-significant.
5	0.18	null	-0.2 to 0.45	A one-off verbal rationale aimed at a trait-like outcome (PSS-10 covers the past month) four weeks later should give a small effect: the primer shows expectation effects are large for acute self-reported outcomes but small for chronic ones, and non-clinical OLP effects are about 0.29. With about 60 per expectancy level in healthy volunteers, power for d of about 0.2 is roughly 20%. The time interaction adds a little extra chance, as do self-report, participant masking, and flexible analyses in a small academic trial. The base rate for pre-registered psychology experiments is about 44%, but this design is underpowered for the realistic effect. Moderator: Expectancy effect slightly larger in the cold-shower arms, where a positive rationale makes an unpleasant task credible and may raise adherence; warm-shower rationale is less plausible. Interaction unlikely to reach significance.

Framework forecasters: mean 0.24

Run	p	Direction	90% interval	Reasoning
1	0.27	favours intervention	-0.15 to 0.6	The expectancy manipulation is a single spoken rationale to alert adults, which is one small deposit paying the normal tax (PM-0056, PM-0128). Two things help it: four weeks of repeated enactment with a daily diary (PM-0102, PM-1353, PM-0851), and a self-rated outcome that the Prover can read as confirming (PM-0159, PM-1286). So the direction should favour positive information. But PSS-10 is a general stress-appraisal measure, and the effect is probably small (d about 0.2). With about 60 per level and snowball recruitment, power to detect a main effect at alpha 0.05 is low. The effect is likely concentrated in the cold arm (PM-0113, PM-0110, PM-0218), which dilutes the main effect. Moderator: Cold-shower participants respond more to positive information: the cold is an arousing body render that gives the rationale something felt to confirm, and 'cold builds resilience' fits existing cultural belief, whereas a resilience rationale for ordinary warm showers is less plausible and has no salient sensation to verify it. Claims cited (10) PM-0056 Direct experience changes beliefs far more than arguments do. PM-0128 When people pay full attention and evaluate critically, belief change is substantial but slow. PM-0102 Repeated statements come to be judged as more likely true. PM-1353 Reading and affirmations do not install beliefs; enactment does. PM-0851 Acting on a tentative belief strengthens that belief as the mind justifies the action. PM-0159 People interpret ambiguous events in whatever way supports their existing beliefs. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-0113 Upright posture and slow breathing lead people to feel and believe they are confident. PM-0110 Intense negative and intense positive experiences are both remembered more strongly than mildly positive or negative ones. PM-0218 A person's existing beliefs determine which new beliefs can be acquired and how much effort acquiring them requires.
2	0.22	favours intervention	-0.15 to 0.5	The expectancy manipulation is a single spoken rationale to alert adults: one small deposit paying the normal tax (PM-0056, PM-0128). It gains some weight because it is attached to an enacted, repeated routine (PM-1353, PM-0102) and PSS is a self-rated felt state (PM-1286). In the cold arm the body supplies an arousing render the rationale can price (PM-0113, PM-0110), and the claim fits prior cultural belief (PM-0218). Daily life rarely contradicts it (PM-0137, PM-0936). Still, the realistic effect is small (d about 0.15-0.2). With about 60 per expectancy arm, power is low, so significance is unlikely. Moderator: Cold-shower participants respond more: the rationale rides on an arousing bodily render repeated four times a week and fits a common cultural belief that cold builds resilience, while the warm-shower rationale is less compatible and has no felt signal to verify it. Claims cited (10) PM-0056 Direct experience changes beliefs far more than arguments do. PM-0128 When people pay full attention and evaluate critically, belief change is substantial but slow. PM-1353 Reading and affirmations do not install beliefs; enactment does. PM-0102 Repeated statements come to be judged as more likely true. PM-0113 Upright posture and slow breathing lead people to feel and believe they are confident. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-0110 Intense negative and intense positive experiences are both remembered more strongly than mildly positive or negative ones. PM-0218 A person's existing beliefs determine which new beliefs can be acquired and how much effort acquiring them requires. PM-0137 New beliefs rarely contradicted by daily experience persist, while beliefs contradicted daily need intense reinforcement to take hold. PM-0936 A new belief that daily experience seldom contradicts is adopted easily and starts changing behaviour even before evidence supports it.
3	0.25	favours intervention	-0.15 to 0.55	The expectancy manipulation is one brief rationale given to alert adults. That is an argument paying the normal tax, a small deposit (PM-0056, PM-0128). Repeated showering supplies enactment and bodily renders (PM-1353, PM-0113, PM-0102), and PSS-10 is a felt, self-rated outcome (PM-1286), so the framework expects a positive direction. In warm-shower arms the claim contradicts common sense and gets outspent (PM-0216, PM-0939, PM-0137). Delivery comes from researchers with modest authority (PM-0124). With about 60 per expectancy level, only a d near 0.35 or above reaches significance. The expected pooled d is around 0.2, so support is unlikely but plausible, with part of that chance coming from the expectancy x time interaction route. Moderator: Cold-shower participants respond more: the rationale is paired with a charged bodily render repeated four times weekly, which gives the belief enacted, felt verification; the warm-shower rationale conflicts with common sense and has no somatic event to attach to, so the audit outspends it. Claims cited (10) PM-0056 Direct experience changes beliefs far more than arguments do. PM-0128 When people pay full attention and evaluate critically, belief change is substantial but slow. PM-1353 Reading and affirmations do not install beliefs; enactment does. PM-0113 Upright posture and slow breathing lead people to feel and believe they are confident. PM-0102 Repeated statements come to be judged as more likely true. PM-0216 A new belief that contradicts deeply held existing beliefs is resisted non-consciously, and people experience this only as the new belief failing to persist. PM-0939 A positive self-affirmation that conflicts with a deeper belief is not rejected outright but loses out over time to the deeper belief's ongoing influence. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-0124 The same message changes beliefs more when it comes from an authority than from a stranger. PM-0137 New beliefs rarely contradicted by daily experience persist, while beliefs contradicted daily need intense reinforcement to take hold.
4	0.20	favours intervention	-0.15 to 0.5	The expectancy manipulation is a single brief explanation to alert participants: one small deposit paying the normal tax (PM-0056, PM-0128). It is repeated only implicitly through a practice enacted four times weekly (PM-0102, PM-1353), which helps, and PSS-10 is self-reported felt stress (PM-1286), favouring some effect. But the warm-shower rationale is flat and compatibility-poor (PM-0110, PM-0216), diluting the main effect, and nothing restructures the environment, so a one-time framing fades over four weeks (PM-0946). With about 60 per expectancy arm, power for a plausible d of 0.1-0.25 is low. Direction positive, significance unlikely; any effect concentrates in the cold arm through body-led rendering (PM-0113). Moderator: Cold-shower participants respond more to the positive rationale: the cold exposure is an arousing bodily render that the rationale can price as resilience, and the claim is culturally compatible, whereas a resilience rationale for ordinary warm showers is flat and contradicted by daily experience. Claims cited (9) PM-0056 Direct experience changes beliefs far more than arguments do. PM-0128 When people pay full attention and evaluate critically, belief change is substantial but slow. PM-0102 Repeated statements come to be judged as more likely true. PM-1353 Reading and affirmations do not install beliefs; enactment does. PM-0113 Upright posture and slow breathing lead people to feel and believe they are confident. PM-0110 Intense negative and intense positive experiences are both remembered more strongly than mildly positive or negative ones. PM-0216 A new belief that contradicts deeply held existing beliefs is resisted non-consciously, and people experience this only as the new belief failing to persist. PM-0946 Short intensive belief-change seminars do not produce lasting change because the everyday environment keeps re-installing the old beliefs. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system.
5	0.25	favours intervention	-0.2 to 0.55	The expectancy manipulation is a single spoken rationale to alert participants: one small deposit that pays the normal tax. It does get repeated through the daily shower and diary, and PSS-10 is a self-rated felt state, so some effect is expected, probably favouring positive information. But PSS-10 measures global life stress over the past month, and ordinary days contradict it, so the effect should be small. With about 60 per expectancy arm, a d near 0.2 is underpowered. The cold-shower rationale should work better (arousing bodily render, compatible prior), but that only helps the interaction. Snowball recruitment adds noise. Significance at 4 weeks is unlikely. Moderator: Cold-shower participants respond more to positive information: the cold is an arousing bodily render each morning that the rationale gives meaning to, and the rationale fits a widely held belief about cold exposure; a stress-reducing rationale for warm showers is less compatible and has no impactful render to attach to. Claims cited (10) PM-0056 Direct experience changes beliefs far more than arguments do. PM-0128 When people pay full attention and evaluate critically, belief change is substantial but slow. PM-0113 Upright posture and slow breathing lead people to feel and believe they are confident. PM-0107 Emotionally impactful events raise arousal, which captures attention, which strengthens memory encoding. PM-1353 Reading and affirmations do not install beliefs; enactment does. PM-0102 Repeated statements come to be judged as more likely true. PM-0137 New beliefs rarely contradicted by daily experience persist, while beliefs contradicted daily need intense reinforcement to take hold. PM-0218 A person's existing beliefs determine which new beliefs can be acquired and how much effort acquiring them requires. PM-0946 Short intensive belief-change seminars do not produce lasting change because the everyday environment keeps re-installing the old beliefs. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system.

Effects of Cannabis Species Labeling and Marketing on Perceptual, Subjective and Objective Use Outcomes (Aim 2 Study)

NCT07513337 · Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health · enrollment 3035 · registry status completed · protocol file

Hypothesis. Cannabis ads carrying a strain label (indica, sativa or hybrid) or an effect claim (energizing or sedating) lower perceived harm of one-time use compared with an ad carrying neither.

Counts as supported if: Supported if at least one of the two main effects (any strain label vs no strain label; any effect claim vs no claim) significantly lowers one-time-use harm perception (0-4). Effects on the other four primary outcomes do not decide this forecast.
Effect metric: Mean difference in one-time-use harm perception, 0-4 scale, labelled/claimed ads vs the corresponding no-label/no-claim level (positive = lower perceived harm).

Baseline forecasters: mean 0.29

Run	p	Direction	90% interval	Reasoning
1	0.30	null	-0.08 to 0.12	Large factorial (n=3035, ~760 vs ~2280 for strain label, ~1010 vs ~2020 for claim) gives power to detect ~0.1-point shifts on a 0-4 scale (d~0.1). But the manipulation is a subtle single ad feature, and one-time-use harm is likely rated low with floor effects. Strain labels and effect claims mainly target expectancies, not risk; an energizing or sedating claim could even raise perceived risk for some. Single-exposure persuasion effects on attitudes are small; pre-registered experiments succeed ~44%, and the hypothesis requires a specific direction on one of five outcomes. Two chances at alpha 0.05 raise odds somewhat. Expect near-null effects, with a modest chance a label lowers harm significantly. Moderator: Inexperienced users respond more: their harm perceptions are less anchored by personal experience, so strain labels and effect claims (cues of product familiarity/predictability) can shift them; experienced users already rate one-time harm near floor.
2	0.25	null	-0.08 to 0.12	Single-exposure ad manipulation in an online survey; strain labels and effect claims are subtle cues that do not mention safety, so one-time-use harm perception (already low among users) likely barely moves. Power is good (about 760 vs 2280 for label, 1010 vs 2020 for claim; SE about 0.04 points), so an effect of about 0.08-0.1 would be detected, but two tests give two chances. Claims like 'sedating' or 'energizing' could even raise perceived risk. The primer's persuasion evidence shows small effects on items the ad does not address. I put the chance that at least one main effect significantly lowers harm perception at about 25%. Moderator: Inexperienced users may shift slightly more, since they have weaker prior beliefs about strains and rely more on ad cues; experienced users' harm ratings are anchored by their own use.
3	0.33	null	-0.1 to 0.2	Large online factorial (n=3035, ~250/arm); main-effect contrasts pool ~2000 vs ~760-1000, giving power to detect ~0.12-0.15 point differences (SD ~1.1). But single-exposure ad-feature manipulations typically move perceptions only slightly, and one-time-use harm for cannabis is already rated low among users (floor effects). Strain labels are familiar and not obviously risk-reducing; a sedating claim may even raise perceived risk, offsetting any energizing-claim effect in the pooled 'any claim' contrast. Two shots at significance (either main effect) raises odds somewhat, and immediate self-report outcomes move readily per persuasion literature. Net: modestly below the ~44% pre-registered base rate. Moderator: Inexperienced users respond more: their harm perceptions are less anchored by personal experience, so label/claim cues (which add product legitimacy and specificity) shift ratings more; experienced users already rate one-time-use risk near floor.
4	0.30	null	-0.08 to 0.12	Large factorial online survey (N=3035) gives good power on main effects (SE about 0.04-0.05 on a 0-4 item), so even d near 0.1 could reach significance. But a single ad exposure varying only a strain word or an energizing/sedating claim is a weak manipulation for harm perception, which is anchored in general cannabis attitudes; persuasion survey effects are usually small. Claims may shift expectancies and willingness more than harm, and a 'sedating' claim could even raise perceived risk, diluting the pooled claim effect. Two chances (label or claim) raise odds somewhat. Pre-registered experiment base rate about 44%; adjusted down for weak manipulation and one specific outcome. Moderator: Inexperienced users respond more: they rely more on ad cues such as strain labels and effect claims, while experienced users have anchored harm beliefs from their own use.
5	0.28	null	-0.08 to 0.12	Large factorial (n=3035, ~250/cell) gives good power for main effects (detectable difference about 0.08 points on 0-4 if SD about 1). But a strain label or energizing/sedating claim is a subtle cue with no obvious harm-reduction message; one-time-use harm is already rated low, which compresses variance. Energizing claims could even raise perceived risk (anxiety), and sedating ones could go either way. Brief ad-exposure survey outcomes do move on items addressed directly, but harm is not addressed here. Two chances (strain, claim) raise the odds somewhat; pre-registered-experiment base rate about 44%, adjusted down for indirect link to the outcome. Moderator: Inexperienced users respond slightly more, since they have weaker prior beliefs about cannabis products and rely more on ad cues; experienced users' one-time-use harm ratings sit near the floor.

Framework forecasters: mean 0.31

Run	p	Direction	90% interval	Reasoning
1	0.33	null	-0.08 to 0.14	One ad, seen once online by an alert respondent, is a single mild deposit paying the normal tax. Flat content writes shallow. Harm of one-time use is a surface opinion that already sits low among adults in legal states, so the floor limits movement. A strain label or effect claim presupposes a known, controlled product, and the label works as a cheap interpreter for untrained receivers, which could shave a little off perceived harm. But the same claims (especially sedating or energizing) could also signal potency. With about 2,000 vs 1,000 per contrast, differences near 0.08 are detectable. So there are two chances at a small effect, but the most likely result is a near-null difference. Moderator: Inexperienced users respond more: thin stack on the topic, so a label or effect claim is priced higher; experienced users' harm priors come from their own use and outweigh a single ad. Claims cited (7) PM-0080 Surface opinions are easy to change. PM-0128 When people pay full attention and evaluate critically, belief change is substantial but slow. PM-0090 The effect of an experience on a belief is the product of attention paid, the person's prior attitude toward the topic and source, and perceived social approval. PM-0110 Intense negative and intense positive experiences are both remembered more strongly than mildly positive or negative ones. PM-0254 A self-statement instills both its explicit content and the implicit assumptions in its grammar. PM-0605 Non-experts rely on price as a cue to quality. PM-0133 Children adopt beliefs more strongly than adults because they have fewer prior beliefs to resist them, so the deepest adult beliefs date from childhood.
2	0.30	null	-0.08 to 0.15	A single online ad viewed by an alert participant pays the normal tax: one small, audited deposit. Harm perception of one-time use is an opinion-level belief, which can move, but the manipulation is a single word (indica/sativa/hybrid) or a brief effect claim, a flat, low-impact cue with no backdoor. Strain labels add fluency and a whiff of product-specificity that might slightly lower perceived risk, but the control ad is otherwise identical, so the contrast is tiny. With ~250 per cell the main effects are powered for about 0.08-0.1 scale points; the framework predicts effects near or below that. Prior experience dominates pricing, so inexperienced users would move more. Moderator: Inexperienced users respond more: their stack on cannabis is thin, so a label or claim is priced against little prior experience; experienced users' harm judgments are anchored by their own use and outweigh a single ad cue. Claims cited (7) PM-0056 Direct experience changes beliefs far more than arguments do. PM-0080 Surface opinions are easy to change. PM-0090 The effect of an experience on a belief is the product of attention paid, the person's prior attitude toward the topic and source, and perceived social approval. PM-0128 When people pay full attention and evaluate critically, belief change is substantial but slow. PM-0129 Repeated exposure to stimuli that are never consciously noticed increases liking for them. PM-0133 Children adopt beliefs more strongly than adults because they have fewer prior beliefs to resist them, so the deepest adult beliefs date from childhood. PM-0596 Statements that are easier to process are judged more likely true.
3	0.30	null	-0.08 to 0.15	A single static ad viewed online by an alert survey-taker is one small deposit paying the normal tax (PM-0056, PM-0128); a strain label or effect claim is a minor cue within the ad, near a hidden single frame that books almost nothing (PM-0130). Labels could act weakly as authority/aesthetic gate cues lending pharmaceutical legitimacy (PM-0123, PM-0125), lowering harm slightly, but 'energizing' may add arousal-threat readings. Harm of one-time use is an opinion already anchored by prior experience (PM-0080, PM-0145), especially in experienced users (PM-0138); inexperienced users are thinner stacks (PM-0133). With n~3000, only ~0.08 points is detectable; two shots at significance give modest odds. Moderator: Inexperienced users respond more: their stack on cannabis is thin, so a label/claim cue writes at higher amplitude; experienced users' harm beliefs are verified by their own use and barely move. Claims cited (9) PM-0056 Direct experience changes beliefs far more than arguments do. PM-0080 Surface opinions are easy to change. PM-0128 When people pay full attention and evaluate critically, belief change is substantial but slow. PM-0123 Messages delivered through rhythm, music or story avoid critical evaluation by engaging automatic emotional processing. PM-0125 People reduce critical scrutiny of messages when the source is an authority. PM-0130 A single subliminal exposure has negligible effect on beliefs or choices. PM-0133 Children adopt beliefs more strongly than adults because they have fewer prior beliefs to resist them, so the deepest adult beliefs date from childhood. PM-0138 Hearing a trusted authority confirm an existing belief strengthens that belief disproportionately. PM-0145 When beliefs are part of identity, challenges to them are felt as personal attacks, so political arguments rarely change minds.
4	0.28	null	-0.08 to 0.1	A single online ad seen once by an alert survey respondent pays the normal tax: one small deposit [PM-0128]. Harm perception is an opinion-level belief and can move [PM-0080], but a strain word or an effect claim is a thin cue next to the category signal 'cannabis', which is identical in every arm. Vocabulary like indica/sativa shapes expectancies [PM-0116] more than it shapes risk. An energizing or sedating claim may even signal potency and raise harm. Priors dominate pricing [PM-0090, PM-0152], with novices leaning on cheap cues [PM-0605]. With about 750-1000 per reference cell and two chances to reach significance, small shifts could still come out significant, but the most likely result is a near-null or mixed direction. Moderator: Inexperienced users respond more: their stack on cannabis is thin, so they lean on cheap label cues to interpret the product, while experienced users price the ad against their own use history. Claims cited (6) PM-0080 Surface opinions are easy to change. PM-0090 The effect of an experience on a belief is the product of attention paid, the person's prior attitude toward the topic and source, and perceived social approval. PM-0116 The vocabulary available in a language makes some distinctions and beliefs easier to form. PM-0128 When people pay full attention and evaluate critically, belief change is substantial but slow. PM-0152 The same message is interpreted differently by listeners with different prior beliefs. PM-0605 Non-experts rely on price as a cue to quality.
5	0.33	null	-0.06 to 0.14	A single static ad viewed online is one attentive, audited exposure (the normal tax) with flat affect, which writes shallow. Harm of one-time use is an opinion-level belief, movable but here by a tiny cue: a strain word or effect claim differs from the control by one line of text. Fluency/legitimacy of a familiar strain label could nudge harm down slightly, and 'sedating' may nudge it up, diluting the pooled claim effect. With n about 3000 two main-effect tests have power only for differences near 0.1 on the 0-4 scale; I expect effects around 0.03-0.05, so most likely null, with two chances to cross significance. Moderator: Inexperienced users respond more: their stack on cannabis is thin, so a label's pricing is not outspent by prior experience; experienced users' harm beliefs are verified by their own use. Claims cited (7) PM-0080 Surface opinions are easy to change. PM-0090 The effect of an experience on a belief is the product of attention paid, the person's prior attitude toward the topic and source, and perceived social approval. PM-0110 Intense negative and intense positive experiences are both remembered more strongly than mildly positive or negative ones. PM-0128 When people pay full attention and evaluate critically, belief change is substantial but slow. PM-0133 Children adopt beliefs more strongly than adults because they have fewer prior beliefs to resist them, so the deepest adult beliefs date from childhood. PM-0056 Direct experience changes beliefs far more than arguments do. PM-0596 Statements that are easier to process are judged more likely true.

Hypnotic Cognitive Therapy Reduce Acute & Chronic SCI Pain in Inpatient Rehabilitation

NCT05047120 · University of Washington · enrollment 88 · registry status active not recruiting · protocol file

Hypothesis. Hypnosis-enhanced cognitive therapy (HYP-CT) reduces pain (0-10 NRS) more than spinal cord injury pain education during inpatient rehabilitation.

Counts as supported if: Supported if the report finds a significant between-arm difference favouring HYP-CT on the first registered primary outcome (0-10 NRS pain decrease following live therapist sessions). If the report instead designates weekly average pain intensity after 4 weeks as its primary, that outcome decides.
Effect metric: Between-arm difference in 0-10 NRS pain change (positive = more pain reduction with HYP-CT).

Baseline forecasters: mean 0.62

Run	p	Direction	90% interval	Reasoning
1	0.68	favours intervention	-0.2 to 2.0	The first primary outcome is the immediate pre-post session pain drop. Hypnosis with direct analgesic suggestions reliably produces short-term self-reported pain reduction (g about 0.5-0.75 in experimental pain; about 0.35 for procedures), while education sessions offer little immediate analgesia. Repeated measures (8 sessions per patient, n=88) give reasonable power for the within-session contrast, and patients are unblinded, which favours self-report. Risks: small sample, attrition in inpatient rehab, an interactive education comparator with some nonspecific relief, and the report possibly making 4-week average pain primary, where the effect would be smaller and likely null. Expect about 0.8 NRS points more within-session reduction with HYP-CT. Moderator: Higher-baseline-pain patients show larger within-session decreases (more room to fall); neuropathic vs nociceptive difference likely small, with a slight edge for nociceptive/musculoskeletal pain, which is more responsive to relaxation and suggestion.
2	0.63	favours intervention	0.0 to 2.0	The first primary outcome is the immediate pre-to-post-session NRS drop, self-reported and unblinded to participants. Hypnosis reliably produces short-term self-reported analgesia (g about 0.5-0.75 experimental; about 0.35 procedural), while an education session should produce little immediate relief. Repeated measures (8 sessions) add power even with n=88 (smaller after attrition in acute inpatient rehab). The comparator is active and attention-matched, which shrinks the difference, and small academic trials often land near the significance threshold. If the report switches to 4-week weekly average pain as its primary, the chance of success falls sharply. Net probability is moderately above a coin flip. Moderator: Higher-baseline-pain patients show larger absolute session drops (more room to fall); neuropathic vs nociceptive difference likely small or not significant, if anything nociceptive/musculoskeletal pain responds slightly more to immediate hypnotic analgesia.
3	0.60	favours intervention	-0.3 to 1.8	First registered primary is immediate pre-post session pain decrease, a short-term self-reported outcome where hypnosis reliably produces analgesia (experimental g 0.54-0.76; procedural ~0.35) and participants are unblinded. Repeated measures (8 sessions) across 88 patients add power. Against it: pain education is an active, attention-matched comparator that also yields within-session relief; small single-site trial; possible attrition during inpatient stay. If the report instead leads with 4-week weekly average pain, the chance falls well below half (chronic outcome, small n). Net estimate slightly above coin flip, expected session-level difference about 0.7-0.8 NRS points. Moderator: Higher baseline pain and more hypnotisable patients respond more (more room to drop, hypnotic analgesia scales with suggestibility); neuropathic vs nociceptive difference likely small and underpowered to detect.
4	0.58	favours intervention	-0.2 to 1.8	The first registered primary is the immediate pre-post pain drop after each live session, a short-term self-reported outcome where hypnotic analgesia is most reliable (experimental g 0.54-0.76; procedural SMD about 0.35). Participants are not blinded, and the education comparator has no relaxation or analgesic suggestion, so session-level separation is plausible. Repeated measures (8 sessions) add power despite n=88. Risks: attrition in inpatient SCI, the small sample, and a moderately active comparator (therapist attention, discussion). If the report makes 4-week weekly average pain the primary, the chance of success drops to about 30%. The weighted probability is somewhat above a coin flip. Moderator: Higher-baseline-pain patients show larger session-level decreases (more room to fall, and hypnotic analgesia scales with pain level); neuropathic pain may respond somewhat less to both arms, but the subgroups will be too small for significance.
5	0.60	favours intervention	-0.2 to 1.8	First primary is the immediate pre-post session pain drop, a short-term self-reported outcome where hypnotic analgesia is most reliable (g ~0.5-0.75 experimental; ~0.35 procedural). Repeated measures across ~4 sessions per patient add power despite n=88. Comparator is an attention-matched, interactive pain-education session with a psychologist, which also yields some within-session relief, shrinking the gap. Unblinded participants and self-report favour a positive result. Risks: modest sample, attrition during inpatient stay, and possible designation of 4-week average pain (chronic, smaller effect, likely null) as primary. Net slightly above coin flip. Moderator: Higher-baseline-pain patients show larger immediate HYP-CT reductions (more room to fall, regression to the mean); neuropathic vs nociceptive difference likely small or not detectable at n=88. Highly hypnotisable patients respond more.

Framework forecasters: mean 0.66

Run	p	Direction	90% interval	Reasoning
1	0.68	favours intervention	0.1 to 1.9	The primary is an immediate pre-post session pain change: a render-layer outcome measured right after an induction that suspends the critical faculty, the framework's strongest case (PM-0023, PM-0369, PM-1286). A PhD hypnotist in a hospital room adds authority (PM-0232); a saturated session books heavily regardless of count (PM-0092). Pain education is propositional, paying the normal tax (PM-0128), so acute relief should be smaller. Recordings give a conditioned re-entry cue (PM-0333). Risks: active comparator with the same therapist attention, n=88 split, multiple co-primaries, and the 4-week weekly-average outcome being decisive instead, where daily contradiction and starvation shrink effects (PM-0137, PM-0146). Moderator: Higher-baseline-pain patients show larger session-level reductions (more room, higher arousal/attention); nociceptive and neuropathic both respond acutely, with neuropathic pain less durable because daily sensation contradicts the suggestion more often. Claims cited (9) PM-0023 When critical evaluation is switched off, as in hypnosis, new beliefs are accepted more readily and hold more deeply. PM-0369 When critical thinking is suspended by trance, ritual, rhythm or drugs, suggested beliefs are adopted without resistance. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-0232 People lower their critical scrutiny when a message comes from someone with authority markers. PM-0092 How much an experience changes belief or skill depends on the attention paid, not on elapsed time. PM-0128 When people pay full attention and evaluate critically, belief change is substantial but slow. PM-0333 Repeated pairing of a sound with a receptive state conditions the sound to induce that state. PM-0137 New beliefs rarely contradicted by daily experience persist, while beliefs contradicted daily need intense reinforcement to take hold. PM-0146 Beliefs fade when reinforcement stops, not because they are refuted.
2	0.62	favours intervention	0.1 to 1.9	Hypnotic induction bypasses the critical faculty so suggestions write to the render layer where pain is produced (PM-0023, PM-0369, PM-1286); a live PhD therapist in an inpatient room adds authority and rapport doors (PM-0232, PM-0360). The first primary is immediate pre-post session pain, the outcome the framework most favours: impact over duration (PM-0092), while education pays the normal tax of argument (PM-0128). Recordings add self-sourced repetition (PM-0253). Risk: n=88 and an active interactive comparator; if the report instead leads with 4-week weekly average pain, daily contradiction by new-SCI pain and lack of daylight verification predict attrition toward null (PM-0137, PM-0276, PM-0337). Moderator: Higher-baseline-pain patients show larger session-level reductions (more room, more salient render); neuropathic pain responds somewhat less durably than nociceptive because daily bodily signals contradict the suggestion more often. Claims cited (12) PM-0023 When critical evaluation is switched off, as in hypnosis, new beliefs are accepted more readily and hold more deeply. PM-0369 When critical thinking is suspended by trance, ritual, rhythm or drugs, suggested beliefs are adopted without resistance. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-0132 At the transitions into and out of sleep, when people are attentive but not critical, they are especially open to adopting new beliefs. PM-0232 People lower their critical scrutiny when a message comes from someone with authority markers. PM-0360 People accept claims from someone who has made them feel listened to that they would reject from a stranger. PM-0092 How much an experience changes belief or skill depends on the attention paid, not on elapsed time. PM-0128 When people pay full attention and evaluate critically, belief change is substantial but slow. PM-0137 New beliefs rarely contradicted by daily experience persist, while beliefs contradicted daily need intense reinforcement to take hold. PM-0276 Beliefs repeatedly disconfirmed by feedback weaken; repeatedly confirmed beliefs strengthen. PM-0337 Listening to affirmations without acting on them fails to change belief. PM-0253 Messages framed in the recipient's own idiom or voice are accepted more readily.
3	0.64	favours intervention	0.1 to 1.9	Hypnosis is the framework's paradigm backdoor: induction suspends the critical faculty so suggestions write deeper, and pain is a render-layer outcome reachable without argument. A PhD therapist at the bedside adds authority and rapport (two doors). Education is a proposition to an alert evaluator paying the normal tax. The first primary is the immediate pre-post session change, where acute impact dominates and the effect should be clearest; recordings condition a re-entry cue. Risks: n=88, attenuated attention in acute SCI, active comparator with a warm therapist, and if the 4-week weekly-average outcome decides, daily contradiction by ongoing neuropathic pain erodes the write, shrinking the gap. Moderator: Higher-baseline-pain patients show larger session-level reductions (more room, more attention-capturing salience); nociceptive pain responds somewhat more than neuropathic, which the day contradicts more persistently. Claims cited (12) PM-0023 When critical evaluation is switched off, as in hypnosis, new beliefs are accepted more readily and hold more deeply. PM-0369 When critical thinking is suspended by trance, ritual, rhythm or drugs, suggested beliefs are adopted without resistance. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-0232 People lower their critical scrutiny when a message comes from someone with authority markers. PM-0360 People accept claims from someone who has made them feel listened to that they would reject from a stranger. PM-0132 At the transitions into and out of sleep, when people are attentive but not critical, they are especially open to adopting new beliefs. PM-0364 A neutral cue repeatedly paired with a meaningful one comes to trigger the same response. PM-0333 Repeated pairing of a sound with a receptive state conditions the sound to induce that state. PM-0137 New beliefs rarely contradicted by daily experience persist, while beliefs contradicted daily need intense reinforcement to take hold. PM-0337 Listening to affirmations without acting on them fails to change belief. PM-0128 When people pay full attention and evaluate critically, belief change is substantial but slow. PM-0092 How much an experience changes belief or skill depends on the attention paid, not on elapsed time.
4	0.72	favours intervention	0.2 to 2.0	Primary outcome is immediate pre-post pain change around live sessions, a render-layer outcome measured right after induction, where the framework predicts hypnosis acts most strongly: critical faculty suspended, suggestion written with reduced resistance, delivered by an authoritative PhD in person. Pain education is propositional content paying the normal tax, so its immediate session effect should be small. Repeated sessions and recordings create conditioned entry cues. Framework uncertainty sits in durability (4-week/6-month average pain, contradicted daily by neuropathic input), not the session-level primary. Risks: n=88 with attrition, active comparator with attention and warmth, possible re-designation of weekly average pain as primary, which would lower support odds. Moderator: Higher-baseline-pain patients show larger within-session drops (more room, more salient render); neuropathic vs nociceptive difference small, perhaps slightly larger for nociceptive/musculoskeletal pain less contradicted by constant neural input. Claims cited (11) PM-0023 When critical evaluation is switched off, as in hypnosis, new beliefs are accepted more readily and hold more deeply. PM-0369 When critical thinking is suspended by trance, ritual, rhythm or drugs, suggested beliefs are adopted without resistance. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-0086 The brain actively constructs perceived colour, depth and continuity, including filling in the retinal blind spot. PM-0132 At the transitions into and out of sleep, when people are attentive but not critical, they are especially open to adopting new beliefs. PM-0232 People lower their critical scrutiny when a message comes from someone with authority markers. PM-0128 When people pay full attention and evaluate critically, belief change is substantial but slow. PM-0333 Repeated pairing of a sound with a receptive state conditions the sound to induce that state. PM-0137 New beliefs rarely contradicted by daily experience persist, while beliefs contradicted daily need intense reinforcement to take hold. PM-0276 Beliefs repeatedly disconfirmed by feedback weaken; repeatedly confirmed beliefs strengthen. PM-0104 A recent exposure influences a belief more than many older exposures.
5	0.66	favours intervention	0.1 to 2.0	The first primary is an immediate pre-post session pain drop, the outcome the framework expects hypnosis to move most: induction is a state change past the critical faculty, and suggestions act on render-layer felt pain. A PhD psychologist in the hospital room adds authority and rapport. Education is an argument to an alert evaluator paying the normal tax, so it gives little immediate relief. Repeated measures (8 sessions) add power despite n=88. Risks: a credible active comparator with the same therapist attention; acute SCI pain partly nociceptive and medication-driven; attrition in inpatient rehab; and if the weekly average at 4 weeks decides, daily contradiction by ongoing injury pain shrinks the effect. Moderator: Higher-baseline-pain patients show larger absolute within-session reductions (more room to move; the render layer is where the suggestion acts); nociceptive and neuropathic pain both respond acutely, with perhaps slightly more for pain whose rendering is less tied to ongoing tissue signal, but no reliable subgroup difference expected at n=88. Claims cited (12) PM-0023 When critical evaluation is switched off, as in hypnosis, new beliefs are accepted more readily and hold more deeply. PM-0369 When critical thinking is suspended by trance, ritual, rhythm or drugs, suggested beliefs are adopted without resistance. PM-0132 At the transitions into and out of sleep, when people are attentive but not critical, they are especially open to adopting new beliefs. PM-1340 Inducing an altered state makes people more receptive to new beliefs. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-0086 The brain actively constructs perceived colour, depth and continuity, including filling in the retinal blind spot. PM-0232 People lower their critical scrutiny when a message comes from someone with authority markers. PM-0360 People accept claims from someone who has made them feel listened to that they would reject from a stranger. PM-0128 When people pay full attention and evaluate critically, belief change is substantial but slow. PM-0102 Repeated statements come to be judged as more likely true. PM-0137 New beliefs rarely contradicted by daily experience persist, while beliefs contradicted daily need intense reinforcement to take hold. PM-0276 Beliefs repeatedly disconfirmed by feedback weaken; repeatedly confirmed beliefs strengthen.

Decision-making and Food Intake

NCT07133529 · German Institute of Human Nutrition · enrollment 45 · registry status recruiting · protocol file

Hypothesis. Participants eat more at the laboratory ad libitum buffet in the perceived food-uncertainty condition than in the perceived food-certainty condition.

Counts as supported if: Supported if food intake (energy or grams, whichever the report uses) is significantly higher under perceived uncertainty than under perceived certainty. The registry lists 28 primary outcomes; only buffet intake decides this forecast.
Effect metric: Cohen's d (within-subject, crossover) for uncertainty minus certainty in buffet intake (positive = more eaten under uncertainty).

Baseline forecasters: mean 0.23

Run	p	Direction	90% interval	Reasoning
1	0.25	favours intervention	-0.2 to 0.5	Pre-registered basic-science lab experiment (base rate ~44%). A mild informational manipulation (meal timing withheld) acting on an objective, highly variable outcome (ad libitum buffet intake), with all participants fasted and hungry in both sessions, so hunger likely swamps the certainty manipulation. Insurance-hypothesis and scarcity-cue work suggests a small positive effect, but such effects shrink in confirmatory tests. With n about 45 in a crossover, power for d_z about 0.2 is roughly 25-30%. Stress eating is bidirectional, so subgroup effects may cancel. Buffet intake is one of 28 primary outcomes, which lowers the chance it is emphasised or significant. Moderator: Stress eaters (high SSES) and those with larger cortisol/subjective stress responses to the uncertainty instruction eat more under uncertainty; low/under-eaters under stress may eat less, diluting the main effect.
2	0.22	favours intervention	-0.2 to 0.45	Mild manipulation (withholding meal timing/duration) in a single lab session with an objective intake outcome, both conditions after an overnight fast so hunger dominates intake. Buffet intake is highly variable; with ~45 women, 80% power needs dz near 0.43, while a realistic effect is dz 0.1-0.2. Objective outcomes of expectation-type manipulations tend to be small; pre-registered psychology base rate ~44%, adjusted down for power, a weak manipulation, and 28 co-primary outcomes diluting focus. Direction plausibly favours uncertainty (insurance/scarcity hypothesis), but a null is most likely. Moderator: Stress eaters (high SSES) and those with larger subjective stress/cortisol rises under uncertainty may eat somewhat more, since uncertainty-as-stressor effects on intake concentrate in stress-eaters; expect an exploratory, likely non-significant interaction given n~45.
3	0.25	favours intervention	-0.2 to 0.45	Pre-registered-style lab experiment, n=45 crossover, 28 registered primary outcomes; base rate for such experiments ~44%. The manipulation is a mild verbal one (withholding meal timing/duration info) in fasted healthy women, and ad libitum buffet intake is noisy with ~30-day visit spacing and cycle-phase variation. A plausible true dz of 0.1-0.25 gives low power (~15-45%) at n=45. Direction likely favours uncertainty (insurance/scarcity hypothesis), but effects on objective behavioural outcomes from expectation manipulations are typically small. Hence p about 0.25. Moderator: Stress eaters (high SSES) and those with larger subjective stress/cortisol rise under uncertainty should eat more under uncertainty, since the hypothesised pathway is stress-driven intake; but subgroups are small and interactions likely non-significant.
4	0.25	favours intervention	-0.2 to 0.45	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. Moderator: 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.
5	0.20	favours intervention	-0.2 to 0.45	A pre-registered single-lab experiment with a subtle manipulation: meal timing withheld versus disclosed, in fasted young women. The theory (scarcity or insurance hypothesis) predicts more intake, but a one-session instruction change is a weak manipulation. Ad libitum buffet intake varies a lot from session to session, and the two visits are about 30 days apart, spanning cycle phase, so within-subject noise is large. With n of about 45 (fewer after dropout), 80% power needs dz of about 0.43, and the realistic effect is about 0.1 to 0.2. The buffet opens after testing, so both conditions are equally hungry, which dilutes any effect. Base rate for pre-registered psychology experiments is about 44%; adjusted down for weak manipulation and power. Moderator: Stress eaters (high SSES) and those with larger subjective stress or cortisol rises under uncertainty should show more extra intake, since uncertainty is theorised to act as a mild stressor that increases intake only in stress-hyperphagic people; the interaction will probably be underpowered at n=45.

Framework forecasters: mean 0.28

Run	p	Direction	90% interval	Reasoning
1	0.30	favours intervention	-0.2 to 0.55	Withholding meal timing after a fast is a mild threat signal; threat reads fastest and weighs heaviest (PM-0585, PM-0845), and an unfed deficiency widens desire (PM-0321), so the framework leans toward more intake under uncertainty, with the body leading (PM-0113). But the manipulation is a single mild instruction to alert adults (the normal tax, PM-0128), the buffet ends the uncertainty, and with ~45 women and 28 primary outcomes the effect may land on adjacent measures (stress, craving, hunger ratings) rather than grams eaten (PM-0289, PM-1278). Expect a small positive d, likely under-powered; significance is less likely than not. Moderator: Stress eaters (high SSES) and those with larger subjective stress/cortisol rises should eat more under uncertainty, because uncertain food availability is priced as threat and threat-primed receivers book it heaviest; low stress eaters may show null or reduced intake. Claims cited (7) PM-0585 Threatening information is processed faster and weighs more than positive information. PM-0845 Feeling afraid makes threatening information seem more believable. PM-0321 Desire is the gap between what a belief demands and what arrives, and grows with deprivation. PM-0113 Upright posture and slow breathing lead people to feel and believe they are confident. PM-0128 When people pay full attention and evaluate critically, belief change is substantial but slow. PM-0289 Outcomes of affirmations match their literal wording rather than the intention behind them. PM-1278 Beliefs that do not change behaviour are not genuinely held.
2	0.27	favours intervention	-0.2 to 0.5	The framework reads withheld meal timing as a threat cue: threat weighs heaviest (PM-0585), fear makes scarcity credible (PM-0845), and desire widens while unfed (PM-0321), so direction favours more eating under uncertainty. But the manipulation is mild: simply not disclosing timing in a lab after an overnight fast, where both conditions end at an ample buffet. Mild signals write shallow (PM-0110, PM-0092), and the effect may land on adjacent outcomes such as stress, craving or hunger ratings rather than grams eaten (PM-0289). With about 45 women in a crossover and noisy ad libitum intake, a small positive d is likely but significance is uncertain. Moderator: Stress eaters (high SSES) and those with larger subjective-stress/cortisol rises under uncertainty should eat more, since withheld meal timing reads as a threat signal that fear makes credible and that prices the unfed appetite gap higher; low stress eaters may show null or reduced intake. Claims cited (6) PM-0585 Threatening information is processed faster and weighs more than positive information. PM-0845 Feeling afraid makes threatening information seem more believable. PM-0321 Desire is the gap between what a belief demands and what arrives, and grows with deprivation. PM-0110 Intense negative and intense positive experiences are both remembered more strongly than mildly positive or negative ones. PM-0092 How much an experience changes belief or skill depends on the attention paid, not on elapsed time. PM-0289 Outcomes of affirmations match their literal wording rather than the intention behind them.
3	0.30	favours intervention	-0.2 to 0.5	The framework treats scarcity as an installed base-layer assumption that drives acquisition beyond need (PM-0706, PM-0710), and threat is priced heaviest (PM-0585), so withheld meal timing after a fast should nudge intake upward. But the manipulation is mild: omitting schedule information in a lab where food is plainly available is weak, low-impact input to alert adults (PM-0128), competing with hunger's own strong somatic signal (PM-0697). With ~45 women, 28 outcomes and high buffet-intake variability, a small positive d is likely but significance is uncertain. Anxious or stress-eating receivers should respond more (PM-0845, PM-0601). Moderator: Stress eaters (high SSES) and those with larger subjective stress/cortisol rises under uncertainty eat more, because threat is priced heaviest and the installed scarcity assumption is triggered most in threat-primed receivers. Claims cited (8) PM-0706 People experience scarcity as fact rather than belief. PM-0710 Infinite wants are a product of the scarcity belief, not human nature. PM-0697 Bodily deprivation installs beliefs more powerfully than persuasion. PM-0585 Threatening information is processed faster and weighs more than positive information. PM-0845 Feeling afraid makes threatening information seem more believable. PM-0601 Messages have larger effects on emotionally aroused receivers. PM-0128 When people pay full attention and evaluate critically, belief change is substantial but slow. PM-1278 Beliefs that do not change behaviour are not genuinely held.
4	0.27	favours intervention	-0.2 to 0.5	Withholding meal timing is a threat signal (possible scarcity), which the framework prices heavily (PM-0585, PM-0845), and desire grows as a deficiency gap while unfed (PM-0321), predicting more eating under uncertainty. But the manipulation is mild: fasted healthy women in a safe lab where food reliably arrives, so the threat writes shallow (PM-0110) and bodily hunger after an overnight fast dominates both visits (PM-0113). The effect may show on self-reported stress or craving rather than grams eaten (PM-0289, PM-1278). With n about 45 crossover, 28 primary outcomes and high buffet variance, a small positive d is likely but significance is uncertain. Moderator: Stress eaters (high SSES) and participants with larger cortisol or subjective stress rises under uncertainty should increase intake more, because threat is priced heaviest and fear raises the weight of scarcity signals; low-stress-reactive women show little difference. Claims cited (7) PM-0585 Threatening information is processed faster and weighs more than positive information. PM-0845 Feeling afraid makes threatening information seem more believable. PM-0321 Desire is the gap between what a belief demands and what arrives, and grows with deprivation. PM-0110 Intense negative and intense positive experiences are both remembered more strongly than mildly positive or negative ones. PM-0113 Upright posture and slow breathing lead people to feel and believe they are confident. PM-0289 Outcomes of affirmations match their literal wording rather than the intention behind them. PM-1278 Beliefs that do not change behaviour are not genuinely held.
5	0.27	favours intervention	-0.2 to 0.5	Withholding meal timing is a mild scarcity/threat signal; threat weighs heaviest (PM-0585) and an unfed imprint widens desire (PM-0321), so the framework predicts more intake under uncertainty. But the manipulation is weak: a lab visit with a known buffet reaching no deeper than an opinion-level expectation (PM-1077), in healthy, fasted women where hunger dominates both arms (PM-0113). Buffet intake is noisy, n~45 crossover, and 28 primary outcomes mean the effect may land on adjacent measures like stress or craving rather than grams eaten (PM-0289). Arousal amplifies pricing only for responsive participants (PM-0601, PM-0845). Expect a small positive d (~0.15), likely non-significant. Moderator: Stress eaters (high SSES) and those with larger subjective stress/cortisol rises under uncertainty eat more, because an aroused, threat-primed receiver prices the scarcity signal higher; interaction likely underpowered at n=45. Claims cited (7) PM-0585 Threatening information is processed faster and weighs more than positive information. PM-0321 Desire is the gap between what a belief demands and what arrives, and grows with deprivation. PM-0601 Messages have larger effects on emotionally aroused receivers. PM-0845 Feeling afraid makes threatening information seem more believable. PM-0113 Upright posture and slow breathing lead people to feel and believe they are confident. PM-0289 Outcomes of affirmations match their literal wording rather than the intention behind them. PM-1077 The more foundational a belief, the stronger the intervention needed to change it.

Efficacy and Underlying Mechanisms of Group Natural Psychotherapy for Anxiety Symptoms

NCT07731568 · Beijing HuiLongGuan Hospital · enrollment 55 · registry status recruiting · protocol file

Hypothesis. Online group Natural Psychotherapy (NPT) lowers GAD-7 anxiety more than online group CBT in Chinese university students.

Counts as supported if: Supported if the report's primary analysis (group x time, or the between-group difference at 4 or 8 weeks) shows significantly greater GAD-7 reduction with NPT than with CBT. Equivalence or non-inferiority does not count as supported.
Effect metric: Between-group difference in GAD-7 change, 0-21 scale, at 4 weeks (positive = larger reduction with NPT).

Baseline forecasters: mean 0.21

Run	p	Direction	90% interval	Reasoning
1	0.20	null	-1.5 to 3.0	Two-arm RCT, n=55 (~27 per arm), active comparator (online group CBT of matched dose and structure), self-reported GAD-7 in a mild-to-moderate student sample (GAD-7 >=4). Bona fide active psychotherapies rarely differ; expected true difference is ~0-0.2 SD (~0-1 GAD-7 point, SD ~4). With ~27 per arm, power to detect d=0.3 is under 20%. Sponsor allegiance to NPT (developer's own therapy, outcome assessor-only masking, self-report outcome) and flexible analysis (group x time or 4- or 8-week contrasts) raise the chance of a reported significant advantage above the pure power figure. Forecast about 20%. Moderator: Students with higher baseline anxiety may show larger absolute reductions in both arms (more room to improve, regression to the mean); any NPT-vs-CBT difference is likely to appear there if anywhere, but the trial is too small to detect an interaction reliably.
2	0.22	favours intervention	-1.5 to 3.0	Two bona fide group psychotherapies head to head; active-comparator psychotherapy differences are typically small (d ~0.1-0.2). With n=55 (~27 per arm), power to detect even d=0.5 is under 50%; realistic d~0.2-0.3 gives power ~15-25%. Mild GAD-7 inclusion (>=4) limits room for differential change and both arms will improve through regression to the mean and group support. Upward adjustments: developer allegiance (sponsor originated NPT), single-site Chinese trial with self-report outcome, and outcome-assessor-only masking, which raise odds of a nominally significant result or favourable framing. Net probability near 0.2; point estimate ~0.7 GAD-7 points favouring NPT with a wide interval. Moderator: Higher-baseline-anxiety students may show slightly larger NPT advantage (more room to change, acceptance-based Morita elements suit ruminative worry), but the trial is too small to detect an interaction; likely reported as none.
3	0.25	null	-1.5 to 3.0	Active-comparator (CBT) head-to-head with n=55 (~27/arm), a mild-threshold sample (GAD-7>=4), 4-week online group format. Bona fide psychotherapies against each other typically differ by d~0-0.2; detecting that needs hundreds per arm. Both arms will improve substantially (regression to mean, group support), compressing differences. Upward adjustments: developer allegiance (sponsor created NPT), outcome-assessor-only masking with a self-report outcome, small single-site Chinese trials that often report positives, and possible reliance on group x time or 8-week alternatives. Net probability of a significant NPT advantage around 0.25; central estimate ~0.7 GAD-7 points favouring NPT with wide uncertainty. Moderator: Higher-baseline-anxiety students show larger absolute GAD-7 drops in both arms (more room, regression to the mean); any NPT-vs-CBT difference, if present, would appear there, but the trial is far too small to detect an interaction.
4	0.16	favours intervention	-1.5 to 3.0	Two active, structurally matched 4-week online group therapies (Morita-derived NPT vs CBT); head-to-head bona fide psychotherapy comparisons usually show small or no differences. With ~55 participants (~27/arm), power to detect even d=0.5 is under 50%, and a realistic difference (d~0.1-0.3, i.e. ~0.5-1 GAD-7 point) is far below detectable. Low baseline threshold (GAD-7>=4) compresses change. Developer allegiance (sponsor created NPT), outcome-assessor-only masking on a self-report scale, and flexible choice of 4- vs 8-week analysis nudge probability above pure chance of a false positive. Point estimate slightly favouring NPT, interval spanning zero. Moderator: Higher-baseline-anxiety students may show larger absolute GAD-7 drops in both arms (more room, regression to the mean); any NPT advantage, if present, would more plausibly appear there, but the trial is too small to detect an interaction.
5	0.20	null	-1.5 to 3.5	This is a superiority test against an active, structurally matched comparator: online group CBT with the same dose and format. With n=55 (about 27 per arm), 80% power needs roughly d>=0.75, which is about 3 GAD-7 points. Differences between bona fide active psychotherapies are usually small (d around 0.1-0.2), so the true gap is likely under 1 point. Several things raise the odds a little: the developer runs the trial (allegiance), the outcome is self-reported, the NPT arm is novel and culturally tailored, only the assessor is blinded, and 'or 8 weeks' gives more than one chance to reach significance. Mild entry threshold (GAD-7>=4) limits room to change. Expect both arms to improve and the difference to be non-significant. Moderator: Higher-baseline-anxiety students may show a slightly larger NPT advantage, since there is more room to improve and Morita-style acceptance or exposure suits people who ruminate. The trial is far too small to detect this moderator reliably.

Framework forecasters: mean 0.29

Run	p	Direction	90% interval	Reasoning
1	0.27	favours intervention	-1.0 to 3.0	Framework favours NPT modestly: its principles are enactment rules (endure, act, seek what you fear), and enactment installs where assent does not (PM-1353, PM-0851), whereas CBT's cognitive restructuring is partly argument, a small deposit (PM-0056, PM-0145). Culturally congruent framing raises installed value and compatibility (PM-0218, PM-0090). But CBT also contains behavioural experiments, both arms share group delivery (PM-0383), online format, 4 weeks, and the same homework, so the contrast is narrow. With n=55 split across two active arms, a superiority test is underpowered; sponsor allegiance raises odds of a reported positive result somewhat. Expected difference ~1 GAD-7 point, interval spanning zero. Moderator: Higher-baseline-anxiety students gain more from NPT over CBT: their anxiety is more identity-bound and resists CBT's argument-style restructuring, while NPT's enactment ('do what you fear') installs through action; low-baseline students hit floor effects in both arms. Claims cited (8) PM-1353 Reading and affirmations do not install beliefs; enactment does. PM-0056 Direct experience changes beliefs far more than arguments do. PM-0851 Acting on a tentative belief strengthens that belief as the mind justifies the action. PM-0218 A person's existing beliefs determine which new beliefs can be acquired and how much effort acquiring them requires. PM-0383 Being in a group makes people much more ready to accept new beliefs. PM-0145 When beliefs are part of identity, challenges to them are felt as personal attacks, so political arguments rarely change minds. PM-0936 A new belief that daily experience seldom contradicts is adopted easily and starts changing behaviour even before evidence supports it. PM-0090 The effect of an experience on a belief is the product of attention paid, the person's prior attitude toward the topic and source, and perceived social approval.
2	0.30	favours intervention	-1.5 to 3.5	The framework favours NPT slightly: CBT's core cognitive restructuring is argument, a first-order deposit that barely moves belief (PM-0056, PM-0238), while NPT's 'do what you fear' and acceptance principles demand enactment, which installs (PM-1353, PM-0851, PM-1345). NPT's framing in traditional Chinese culture is compatible with participants' cultural programming, lowering the compatibility-check cost (PM-0218, PM-0081, PM-0939). But CBT also contains behavioural experiments, both arms get the same group delivery (PM-0383), both are online and 4 weeks, and n=55 gives power only for large differences. Sponsor allegiance raises the chance of a significant result, yet superiority over an active comparator in so small a trial remains less likely than not. Moderator: Higher-baseline-anxiety students gain more from NPT over CBT: their anxiety is less movable by cognitive restructuring (argument) and responds to enacted, feared action and acceptance; low-baseline students show floor effects in both arms. Claims cited (9) PM-0056 Direct experience changes beliefs far more than arguments do. PM-0238 Arguments against a belief system in its own terms tend to be absorbed or strengthen it rather than change it. PM-1353 Reading and affirmations do not install beliefs; enactment does. PM-0851 Acting on a tentative belief strengthens that belief as the mind justifies the action. PM-1345 People infer their beliefs from their own behaviour. PM-0218 A person's existing beliefs determine which new beliefs can be acquired and how much effort acquiring them requires. PM-0081 Culturally shared beliefs go unnoticed because everyone holds them. PM-0383 Being in a group makes people much more ready to accept new beliefs. PM-0939 A positive self-affirmation that conflicts with a deeper belief is not rejected outright but loses out over time to the deeper belief's ongoing influence.
3	0.27	favours intervention	-1.5 to 3.0	The framework favours NPT slightly: its principles demand enactment (endure, accept, seek the feared), and enactment installs where assent does not [PM-1353, PM-0851], while CBT's cognitive restructuring is partly argument, a small deposit paying the normal tax [PM-0056, PM-0128]. NPT's Chinese-cultural framing should pass the compatibility check more cheaply for these participants [PM-0218, PM-0216]. But both arms are online groups with exposure-type homework and equal dose [PM-0383], so the difference is modest, and a 4-week course is close to a weekend seminar in depth [PM-0946]. With about 27 per arm against an active comparator, significant superiority needs roughly d=0.75; the likely outcome is a nonsignificant NPT-leaning difference, though developer allegiance raises the odds somewhat. Moderator: Higher-baseline-anxiety students gain more from NPT relative to CBT: exposure-by-enactment ('do what you fear') produces behavioural proof that outweighs cognitive restructuring when the anxious account is heavily potentiated, whereas mild cases move under either arm. Claims cited (8) PM-1353 Reading and affirmations do not install beliefs; enactment does. PM-0851 Acting on a tentative belief strengthens that belief as the mind justifies the action. PM-0056 Direct experience changes beliefs far more than arguments do. PM-0128 When people pay full attention and evaluate critically, belief change is substantial but slow. PM-0218 A person's existing beliefs determine which new beliefs can be acquired and how much effort acquiring them requires. PM-0216 A new belief that contradicts deeply held existing beliefs is resisted non-consciously, and people experience this only as the new belief failing to persist. PM-0383 Being in a group makes people much more ready to accept new beliefs. PM-0946 Short intensive belief-change seminars do not produce lasting change because the everyday environment keeps re-installing the old beliefs.
4	0.33	favours intervention	-1.0 to 3.5	Framework favours NPT slightly: its core is enactment (endure, accept, do what you fear), which installs through behavioural proof, while CBT's cognitive restructuring is first-order argument paying the normal tax. NPT's Chinese-cultural framing is more compatible with deep layers. But CBT also includes behavioural experiments, both arms are online groups with equal dose, and n=55 split two ways gives low power for a between-active-arm difference; a significant superiority result needs roughly 3+ GAD-7 points. Sponsor allegiance raises the chance of a reported positive. Expect a small NPT edge, most likely non-significant. Moderator: Higher-baseline-anxiety students gain more from NPT over CBT: their threat-charged state gives exposure-style enactment ('seek pain, do what you fear') higher impact per session, while cognitive restructuring pays the normal tax of argument. Claims cited (9) PM-1353 Reading and affirmations do not install beliefs; enactment does. PM-0851 Acting on a tentative belief strengthens that belief as the mind justifies the action. PM-1345 People infer their beliefs from their own behaviour. PM-0056 Direct experience changes beliefs far more than arguments do. PM-0238 Arguments against a belief system in its own terms tend to be absorbed or strengthen it rather than change it. PM-0128 When people pay full attention and evaluate critically, belief change is substantial but slow. PM-0218 A person's existing beliefs determine which new beliefs can be acquired and how much effort acquiring them requires. PM-0383 Being in a group makes people much more ready to accept new beliefs. PM-0601 Messages have larger effects on emotionally aroused receivers.
5	0.27	favours intervention	-1.5 to 3.0	The framework leans slightly toward NPT: its three principles are enactment ('do what you fear'), which installs where assent does not (PM-1353, PM-0851, PM-1345), while CBT's cognitive restructuring is first-order argument, a small deposit taxed by an alert evaluator (PM-0056, PM-0238, PM-0128), especially against threat that is priced heavily (PM-0845, PM-0585). But CBT also includes behavioural experiments, both arms share group delivery and online format (PM-0383), and the felt-symptom outcome is reachable by both (PM-1286). With about 55 participants and an active comparator, only a large difference would reach significance; developer allegiance (PM-0232) raises the chance somewhat. The most likely result is both arms improving and no significant difference. Moderator: Higher-baseline-anxiety students gain more from NPT relative to CBT: under high threat, cognitive restructuring is argument paying the normal tax against heavily priced threat, while NPT's enact-and-accept principles install through behaviour and the body. Claims cited (11) PM-1353 Reading and affirmations do not install beliefs; enactment does. PM-0851 Acting on a tentative belief strengthens that belief as the mind justifies the action. PM-1345 People infer their beliefs from their own behaviour. PM-0056 Direct experience changes beliefs far more than arguments do. PM-0238 Arguments against a belief system in its own terms tend to be absorbed or strengthen it rather than change it. PM-0128 When people pay full attention and evaluate critically, belief change is substantial but slow. PM-0845 Feeling afraid makes threatening information seem more believable. PM-0585 Threatening information is processed faster and weighs more than positive information. PM-0383 Being in a group makes people much more ready to accept new beliefs. PM-0232 People lower their critical scrutiny when a message comes from someone with authority markers. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system.

Virtual Reality Headset and Acceptability of Rectosigmoidoscopy in Ulcerative Colitis: a Randomised Controlled Trial

NCT06632691 · Centre Hospitalier Departemental Vendee · enrollment 100 · registry status completed · protocol file

Hypothesis. A virtual reality headset delivering medical hypnosis reduces pain (0-10 VAS) reported immediately after rectosigmoidoscopy compared with no headset in patients with ulcerative colitis.

Counts as supported if: Supported if post-examination VAS pain is significantly lower in the VR-headset arm than in the no-headset arm.
Effect metric: Mean difference in VAS pain, 0-10 (positive = less pain with the headset).

Baseline forecasters: mean 0.47

Run	p	Direction	90% interval	Reasoning
1	0.45	favours intervention	-0.3 to 2.0	Randomised, unblinded, no-headset control with a self-reported immediate procedural pain outcome favours a positive result (weak comparator, expectation effects large for procedural pain). But the recent procedural hypnosis meta-analysis gives pain SMD ~0.35; the cited Chinese colonoscopy trial (2-point gain) should be halved, and rectosigmoidoscopy is less painful than colonoscopy, compressing VAS (floor effects, mean maybe 3-4, SD ~2.5). Expected difference ~0.8-1 point, d ~0.35-0.4. With ~50 per arm, power for d=0.4 is roughly 50%. Net probability of a significant difference slightly below a coin flip. Moderator: Anxious patients benefit more: hypnosis/VR effects are larger on anxiety (SMD ~0.43) and anxiety amplifies procedural pain, leaving more room to reduce it; sex difference likely small or none.
2	0.50	favours intervention	-0.3 to 2.2	Unblinded RCT, n=100 (~50/arm), VR hypnosis vs no headset, self-reported VAS immediately after a short procedure: weak comparator and self-report favour a positive result. But the trial was powered on a 2-point gain from a single Chinese colonoscopy trial; rectosigmoidoscopy is less painful (mean VAS perhaps 3-4, SD ~2.5), limiting floor room. Procedural hypnosis meta-analysis gives pain SMD ~0.35; halving the pilot estimate suggests ~1 point (d~0.4), giving roughly 50% power at 50/arm, nudged up for unblinding and expectancy, down for floor effects and small single-centre variance. Net about a coin flip. Moderator: Anxious patients benefit more: VR hypnosis acts largely through anxiolysis and distraction, and anxious patients have higher procedural pain with more room to fall; sex difference likely small/none.
3	0.50	favours intervention	-0.3 to 2.2	Unblinded RCT, n=100 (~50/arm), VR hypnosis vs no headset, self-reported pain immediately after a short procedure. Primer: hypnosis for invasive procedures pain SMD ~0.35; the no-treatment comparator and lack of blinding inflate this, pushing it toward ~0.45. Rectosigmoidoscopy pain is modest (mean perhaps 3-4/10, SD ~2.5), so the expected difference is ~1 point, not the 2-point colonoscopy pilot gain the trial was powered on (halve pilot effects). At d~0.4-0.45 with 50/arm, power is about 50-60%; floor effects in a milder procedure cut it slightly. Net about a coin flip. Moderator: Anxious patients and women benefit more: higher baseline anxiety and pain leave more room for hypnotic/distraction analgesia, and anxiety amplifies procedural pain.
4	0.45	favours intervention	-0.3 to 2.0	Unblinded RCT, n=100 (~50/arm), self-reported procedural pain against a no-headset control, which favours a positive effect. But the trial was powered on a 2-point colonoscopy gain from one Chinese study; halving that and noting rectosigmoidoscopy is shorter and less painful (lower control means, floor effects) suggests ~0.8-1.0 points, SD ~2.5 (d~0.35-0.4). Procedural hypnosis meta-analysis gives pain SMD ~0.35. With 50/arm, power for d~0.35-0.45 is roughly 35-60%. Weak comparator and unblinding lift the chance somewhat. Net probability just under a coin flip. Moderator: Anxious patients benefit more: VR hypnosis acts largely through anxiolysis and distraction, and anxiety amplifies procedural pain; no reliable sex difference expected.
5	0.45	favours intervention	-0.4 to 2.0	Open-label RCT, VR hypnosis vs no headset, self-reported pain immediately after the procedure: a weak comparator and an outcome that favours the intervention. The Liu 2022 colonoscopy trial showed a 2-point median gain, but that was a single small trial, and rectosigmoidoscopy is less painful (floor effect: mean VAS likely 3-4, SD about 2.3). Following the primer, halve it to about 1 point, roughly d 0.4-0.45, in line with hypnosis for procedures (SMD 0.35) plus some inflation from the absence of blinding. With 50 per arm, power at d 0.45 is about 55%. Probability just under a coin flip. Moderator: Anxious patients (and possibly women, who report more pain at endoscopy) benefit more, since VR hypnosis acts largely via anxiety reduction and distraction; likely underpowered to show it.

Framework forecasters: mean 0.49

Run	p	Direction	90% interval	Reasoning
1	0.45	favours intervention	-0.3 to 2.0	VR hypnosis is a state change and backdoor past the critical faculty (PM-1340, PM-0023, PM-0369), aimed at a render-layer outcome, felt pain, which the framework says belief reaches (PM-1286). Immersive setting and captured attention raise impact within one session (PM-0092, PM-0485). Unmasked self-report lets the Prover read ambiguous sensation as relief (PM-0159). Against that, a headset replaces live hypnotist authority and rapport (PM-0232, PM-0361), rectosigmoidoscopy is brief and only mildly painful (floor effect), and n=100 has power only for about 1.3+ VAS points. Expected difference about 0.8-1 point, so significance is roughly a coin flip, slightly below. Anxious patients should gain most (PM-0845). Moderator: Anxious patients benefit more: threat-primed receivers price the procedure's pain signals heaviest, so a hypnotic state change that captures attention has more to remove; sex difference expected to be small. Claims cited (11) PM-0023 When critical evaluation is switched off, as in hypnosis, new beliefs are accepted more readily and hold more deeply. PM-0369 When critical thinking is suspended by trance, ritual, rhythm or drugs, suggested beliefs are adopted without resistance. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-1340 Inducing an altered state makes people more receptive to new beliefs. PM-0132 At the transitions into and out of sleep, when people are attentive but not critical, they are especially open to adopting new beliefs. PM-0092 How much an experience changes belief or skill depends on the attention paid, not on elapsed time. PM-0485 A belief depends on the surrounding social setting as much as on its content. PM-0845 Feeling afraid makes threatening information seem more believable. PM-0159 People interpret ambiguous events in whatever way supports their existing beliefs. PM-0232 People lower their critical scrutiny when a message comes from someone with authority markers. PM-0361 Trust in the speaker reduces the listener's critical scrutiny of what is said next.
2	0.50	favours intervention	-0.4 to 2.0	The framework expects hypnosis to act at the render layer, so self-rated pain is its most reachable outcome (PM-1286, PM-0372); VR induction is a state change past the critical faculty (PM-0023, PM-1340). But delivery is a recorded headset without live hypnotist authority or rapport (PM-0232, PM-0360), and patients carry an installed prior from earlier rectosigmoidoscopies that files against the new entry (PM-0216). Rectosigmoidoscopy pain is modest, compressing the room for a difference; n=100 with SD around 2.5 powers roughly a 1.4-point effect. Unblinded self-report inflates the arm difference. Expect roughly 0.8 points benefit, near the significance threshold. Moderator: Anxious patients benefit more: threat-primed receivers price the procedure's pain heavily, and the hypnotic state change offers the most to rebook; no clear sex difference expected beyond what anxiety explains. Claims cited (13) PM-0023 When critical evaluation is switched off, as in hypnosis, new beliefs are accepted more readily and hold more deeply. PM-0369 When critical thinking is suspended by trance, ritual, rhythm or drugs, suggested beliefs are adopted without resistance. PM-1340 Inducing an altered state makes people more receptive to new beliefs. PM-0132 At the transitions into and out of sleep, when people are attentive but not critical, they are especially open to adopting new beliefs. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-0086 The brain actively constructs perceived colour, depth and continuity, including filling in the retinal blind spot. PM-0372 A treatment built on a false theory still produced measurable bodily effects because patients believed in it. PM-0216 A new belief that contradicts deeply held existing beliefs is resisted non-consciously, and people experience this only as the new belief failing to persist. PM-0845 Feeling afraid makes threatening information seem more believable. PM-0601 Messages have larger effects on emotionally aroused receivers. PM-0232 People lower their critical scrutiny when a message comes from someone with authority markers. PM-0360 People accept claims from someone who has made them feel listened to that they would reject from a stranger. PM-0092 How much an experience changes belief or skill depends on the attention paid, not on elapsed time.
3	0.50	favours intervention	-0.3 to 2.0	The framework treats hypnosis and musical trance as backdoors that write at the render layer, where pain lives, so it predicts less felt pain with the headset. Unmasked, self-rated pain recalled right after the procedure favours the belief of the arm the patient was in. Against this: patients already know rectosigmoidoscopy from prior exams (a deep incompatible expectation), baseline pain is modest (floor effect), a single brief induction with an alert, observed patient offers only a shallow bypass, and 50 per arm gives limited power for a difference near 1 point. Expected difference is about 0.8-1.0 VAS points, and whether it reaches significance is close to a coin flip. Moderator: Anxious patients benefit more: fear raises the weight of threat signals and the hypnotic bypass removes more of that pricing; no clear sex difference beyond anxiety. Claims cited (11) PM-0023 When critical evaluation is switched off, as in hypnosis, new beliefs are accepted more readily and hold more deeply. PM-0369 When critical thinking is suspended by trance, ritual, rhythm or drugs, suggested beliefs are adopted without resistance. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-0086 The brain actively constructs perceived colour, depth and continuity, including filling in the retinal blind spot. PM-0132 At the transitions into and out of sleep, when people are attentive but not critical, they are especially open to adopting new beliefs. PM-0230 Rhythmic sound synchronises movement and bodily processes before its meaning is critically evaluated. PM-0845 Feeling afraid makes threatening information seem more believable. PM-0601 Messages have larger effects on emotionally aroused receivers. PM-0314 Memory is biased by current beliefs, so written records are more accurate for self-assessment. PM-0159 People interpret ambiguous events in whatever way supports their existing beliefs. PM-0216 A new belief that contradicts deeply held existing beliefs is resisted non-consciously, and people experience this only as the new belief failing to persist.
4	0.55	favours intervention	-0.3 to 2.0	VR hypnosis is a state change that suspends the critical faculty (PM-1340, PM-0023, PM-0369), with immersive sound and setting as backdoors (PM-0230, PM-0403), aimed at a render-layer outcome, felt pain (PM-1286). Unblinded self-report lets the Prover read ambiguous sensations favourably (PM-0159), all favouring the headset. Against: rectosigmoidoscopy is short and only mildly painful, compressing the VAS; patients are experienced, so the prior 'this hurts' is installed and must be outspent (PM-0137); n=100 gives roughly 50-60% power for a 1-point difference. Anxious receivers price more heavily (PM-0601). Expected difference about 0.8-1.0 point; significance is near a coin flip, slightly favoured. Moderator: Anxious patients benefit more: arousal raises the weight of both the threat render and the hypnotic counter-render, so the induction has more to reprice; sex difference small or none. Claims cited (9) PM-0023 When critical evaluation is switched off, as in hypnosis, new beliefs are accepted more readily and hold more deeply. PM-0369 When critical thinking is suspended by trance, ritual, rhythm or drugs, suggested beliefs are adopted without resistance. PM-1340 Inducing an altered state makes people more receptive to new beliefs. PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-0230 Rhythmic sound synchronises movement and bodily processes before its meaning is critically evaluated. PM-0403 Specific spaces and sounds reliably produce the same emotional state in almost all people. PM-0159 People interpret ambiguous events in whatever way supports their existing beliefs. PM-0601 Messages have larger effects on emotionally aroused receivers. PM-0137 New beliefs rarely contradicted by daily experience persist, while beliefs contradicted daily need intense reinforcement to take hold.
5	0.45	favours intervention	-0.3 to 2.0	Pain is a render-layer outcome, the level the framework says hypnosis and absorbed attention reach (PM-1286, PM-0023, PM-0369, PM-0372); an immersive saturated session outweighs duration (PM-0092). Unmasked, self-rated VAS lets the installed 'this helped' belief colour the report (PM-0159), favouring the headset. But VR hypnosis is a single weak backdoor without live hypnotist authority (PM-0126), rectosigmoidoscopy pain is modest (floor effect), patients are experienced with the exam, and ~50 per arm gives power only for about 1+ point. Prior endoscopy VR trials are mixed. Expect a modest reduction (~0.8 points), borderline significance. Anxious, aroused receivers price threat higher and gain more (PM-0845, PM-0601). Moderator: Anxious patients benefit more: arousal amplifies the pricing of procedural threat, so a hypnotic render that absorbs attention removes more pain from them; sex difference likely none. Claims cited (9) PM-1286 What people perceive depends on the beliefs and expectations built into their perceptual system. PM-0023 When critical evaluation is switched off, as in hypnosis, new beliefs are accepted more readily and hold more deeply. PM-0369 When critical thinking is suspended by trance, ritual, rhythm or drugs, suggested beliefs are adopted without resistance. PM-0372 A treatment built on a false theory still produced measurable bodily effects because patients believed in it. PM-0092 How much an experience changes belief or skill depends on the attention paid, not on elapsed time. PM-0159 People interpret ambiguous events in whatever way supports their existing beliefs. PM-0845 Feeling afraid makes threatening information seem more believable. PM-0601 Messages have larger effects on emotionally aroused receivers. PM-0126 Messages that combine authority with aesthetic appeal change beliefs more than those using either alone.

Combining MyoCI With Memory Reactivation to Improve Motor Recovery After Stroke

NCT04312269 · Northwestern University · enrollment 70 · registry status recruiting · protocol file

Hypothesis. Myoelectric computer interface training combined with targeted memory reactivation (TMR) during sleep improves arm function (Wolf Motor Function Test) more than the same training with sham TMR after 6 weeks in chronic stroke survivors.

Counts as supported if: Supported if the all-phase TMR arm, or the TMR arms pooled if that is the reported primary contrast, shows significantly greater WMFT improvement from baseline to 6 weeks than sham TMR.
Effect metric: Between-group difference in WMFT change (time-based score, as reported), expressed as Cohen's d (positive = more improvement with TMR).

Baseline forecasters: mean 0.12

Run	p	Direction	90% interval	Reasoning
1	0.12	null	-0.45 to 0.75	Four arms from ~70 enrolled gives ~17 per arm; detecting a between-arm difference needs d near 1.0. Lab TMR effects are g = 0.29 on the cued memory itself; here the outcome is generalisation to an untrained functional test (WMFT) in chronic stroke, which should be smaller still. Both arms receive identical MyoCI training, so the comparator is very active and within-group gains will be shared. Timed WMFT scores are skewed and noisy. Expected true effect ~0.1-0.2 d; power well under 20%. Small chance of a chance or selective-analysis positive, plus pooled-arm contrast option, puts probability around 0.12. Moderator: none; if any difference, SWS-only TMR roughly equal to all-phase, since lab TMR benefits come from NREM2/SWS and REM cueing adds nothing, but arms of ~17 cannot resolve it
2	0.12	favours intervention	-0.45 to 0.75	Both arms receive identical MyoCI training, so TMR is an add-on with a small expected lab effect (g~0.29), likely smaller for generalized arm function in chronic stroke (non-memory, transfer outcome). Four arms with ~70 total leaves ~17 per arm; detecting d=0.3 needs ~175 per arm, so power is roughly 10-15%. WMFT time scores are noisy and skewed in moderate-severe patients. Small pilot-scale effects may appear numerically but significance is unlikely. Pooling TMR arms raises power only modestly. Some chance of outcome switching to FMA-UE or subgroup reporting, but resolution requires WMFT at 6 weeks. Moderator: none detectable; if anything SWS-only TMR roughly equals all-phase TMR, since lab TMR benefits come from NREM2/SWS and REM cueing adds nothing, but arms of ~17 cannot distinguish them
3	0.12	favours intervention	-0.45 to 0.75	Lab TMR meta-analytic effect is small (g=0.29) and concerns memory of the cued task, not generalized functional arm ability; transfer to WMFT in chronic stroke after a home/overnight protocol should be smaller still, perhaps d~0.1-0.2. With 70 participants split over four arms (~17 per arm), power to detect d=0.2-0.3 in a pairwise contrast is under 15%. Both arms receive identical MyoCI training, so the comparator is strong. WMFT time scores are noisy and skewed. Small single-lab trials sometimes report positive findings, and pooling TMR arms could raise power slightly, but the probability of a significant primary contrast remains low. Moderator: none detectable; if anything SWS-only TMR roughly equal to all-phase, since lab TMR benefits come from NREM2/SWS and REM cueing adds little, but arms of ~17 cannot resolve it
4	0.12	null	-0.45 to 0.75	TMR lab memory effect is small (g=0.29) and should be smaller for transfer to a generalized, objective motor-function test (WMFT) after weeks of home/lab MyoCI training in chronic stroke. Both arms receive identical training, so the comparator is strong. With 70 planned across four arms (~17 per arm), power to detect d~0.2-0.3 is roughly 10-15%. Double masking limits expectancy. Long recruitment (since 2020, still recruiting) suggests possible under-enrollment. Probability of a significant all-phase-vs-sham WMFT difference is low, slightly above alpha allowing for a possible genuine effect or pooled contrast. Moderator: SWS-only TMR likely comparable to or slightly better than all-phase TMR, since lab TMR effects appear in NREM2/SWS and not REM; differences between TMR arms will be unresolvable at this sample size.
5	0.12	null	-0.45 to 0.8	About 70 participants over four arms gives ~17 per arm, so power to detect even d = 0.5 is low. The TMR meta-analytic effect is g = 0.29 for lab memory tasks. Here the outcome is a generalized functional test (WMFT), not the cued task itself, measured over weeks in chronic stroke at home or in the lab, so the expected transfer effect is smaller still. Both arms get the same MyoCI training, so within-group gains are shared and the between-group contrast is small. The design is double-blind with an objective timed outcome, which limits inflation. Chance of a significant primary contrast is low; a positive trend or a secondary or subgroup claim is more likely than a clean hit. Moderator: none; if any difference, SWS-only TMR roughly equal to all-phase TMR, since lab TMR effects come from NREM2/SWS and REM cueing adds nothing

Framework forecasters: mean 0.18

Run	p	Direction	90% interval	Reasoning
1	0.15	favours intervention	-0.35 to 0.8	Framework: reactivation re-books what attentive daytime training stored (PM-0095, PM-0096); cues paired with learning carry the entry (PM-0333, PM-0364), so a small positive TMR effect is expected. But cues delivered in sleep resemble the drip, nearly weightless and working only by volume (PM-0129, PM-0130); the installer's quadrant is the thresholds, not deep sleep (PM-0132). Gains need daytime use to be promoted (PM-0337, PM-0851), and both arms get identical MyoCI training. General knowledge: ~70 across four arms (~17/arm) gives power only for d above ~1; WMFT timed scores are noisy in moderate-severe chronic stroke. Small positive d, likely non-significant. Moderator: All-phase TMR at least as large as SWS-only; the framework prices cues in deep sleep as near-weightless drip, so SWS confinement should not help and cues landing near sleep thresholds may add a little. Claims cited (11) PM-0095 Actively retrieving a memory strengthens it. PM-0096 People can only change toward states they can imagine, and they can only imagine from stored experience. PM-0129 Repeated exposure to stimuli that are never consciously noticed increases liking for them. PM-0130 A single subliminal exposure has negligible effect on beliefs or choices. PM-0132 At the transitions into and out of sleep, when people are attentive but not critical, they are especially open to adopting new beliefs. PM-0333 Repeated pairing of a sound with a receptive state conditions the sound to induce that state. PM-0364 A neutral cue repeatedly paired with a meaningful one comes to trigger the same response. PM-0337 Listening to affirmations without acting on them fails to change belief. PM-0851 Acting on a tentative belief strengthens that belief as the mind justifies the action. PM-0104 A recent exposure influences a belief more than many older exposures. PM-0061 Repeated experience makes a response automatic.
2	0.17	favours intervention	-0.35 to 0.85	Framework: reactivation re-books what attentive MyoCI training stored (PM-0095, PM-0096), and cues paired with attentive learning carry the entry (PM-0333, PM-0364), so direction favours TMR. But cues during deep sleep resemble the drip, nearly weightless (PM-0129, PM-0130); the installer's quadrant is the threshold, not SWS (PM-0132, PM-0226). The motor gain must also be verified in daytime use (PM-0337, PM-0851); both arms get identical daytime training, which dominates. With ~17 per arm, four arms, chronic stroke and a noisy time-based WMFT, a modest add-on effect (d~0.25) is unlikely to reach p<0.05. Expected: positive trend, not significant. Moderator: All-phase TMR responds more than SWS-only: the framework locates writes at sleep thresholds (N1/transitions), while deep sleep is the near-weightless drip where single cues book almost nothing. Claims cited (11) PM-0129 Repeated exposure to stimuli that are never consciously noticed increases liking for them. PM-0130 A single subliminal exposure has negligible effect on beliefs or choices. PM-0095 Actively retrieving a memory strengthens it. PM-0096 People can only change toward states they can imagine, and they can only imagine from stored experience. PM-0333 Repeated pairing of a sound with a receptive state conditions the sound to induce that state. PM-0364 A neutral cue repeatedly paired with a meaningful one comes to trigger the same response. PM-0132 At the transitions into and out of sleep, when people are attentive but not critical, they are especially open to adopting new beliefs. PM-0226 In the transition between sleep and waking, executive control is not yet active, so suggestions face less critical evaluation. PM-0337 Listening to affirmations without acting on them fails to change belief. PM-0851 Acting on a tentative belief strengthens that belief as the mind justifies the action. PM-0104 A recent exposure influences a belief more than many older exposures.
3	0.17	favours intervention	-0.35 to 0.8	The framework reads TMR as re-booking entries already stored by attentive daytime MyoCI practice (PM-0095, PM-0333, PM-0364), so direction favours TMR, and the cued skill is enacted daily, which promotes it (PM-0851, PM-1353). But the added render per cue is small: sleep cues, especially in deep sleep, resemble the drip and book little (PM-0129, PM-0130), while both arms receive identical, heavy daytime training that dominates WMFT change. With ~17 per arm across four arms in chronic stroke, an incremental d near 0.2-0.3 is unlikely to reach p<0.05. Probability of a significant primary contrast is low; all-phase cueing, reaching thresholds (PM-0132), should do best among TMR arms. Moderator: All-phase TMR at least as good as, likely better than, SWS-only: all-phase cues include lighter stages and sleep-wake thresholds, the installer's quadrant, whereas slow-wave cues resemble the drip and book little per exposure. Claims cited (9) PM-0095 Actively retrieving a memory strengthens it. PM-0129 Repeated exposure to stimuli that are never consciously noticed increases liking for them. PM-0130 A single subliminal exposure has negligible effect on beliefs or choices. PM-0132 At the transitions into and out of sleep, when people are attentive but not critical, they are especially open to adopting new beliefs. PM-0333 Repeated pairing of a sound with a receptive state conditions the sound to induce that state. PM-0364 A neutral cue repeatedly paired with a meaningful one comes to trigger the same response. PM-0104 A recent exposure influences a belief more than many older exposures. PM-0851 Acting on a tentative belief strengthens that belief as the mind justifies the action. PM-1353 Reading and affirmations do not install beliefs; enactment does.
4	0.20	favours intervention	-0.35 to 0.8	Reactivation re-books what attentive MyoCI training stored rather than installing new content (PM-0095, PM-0096); cues paired with attentive learning carry the entry (PM-0333, PM-0364), so a small positive direction is plausible. But sleep cues outside the thresholds are drip-like and book little (PM-0129, PM-0130, PM-0132), and the motor gain is mainly driven by daytime enactment shared by all arms (PM-1353, PM-0851), diluting the between-group contrast. With ~17 per arm, a variable time-based WMFT in moderate-severe chronic stroke, and a sham that still gets full training, significance at alpha 0.05 is unlikely; expected d around 0.2-0.3. Moderator: All-phase TMR at least equal to or larger than SWS-only: the framework holds that cues in deep sleep resemble the drip and book almost nothing, so extra cueing in lighter stages and near thresholds should add weight; differences between TMR arms will be small and non-significant. Claims cited (10) PM-0095 Actively retrieving a memory strengthens it. PM-0096 People can only change toward states they can imagine, and they can only imagine from stored experience. PM-0129 Repeated exposure to stimuli that are never consciously noticed increases liking for them. PM-0130 A single subliminal exposure has negligible effect on beliefs or choices. PM-0132 At the transitions into and out of sleep, when people are attentive but not critical, they are especially open to adopting new beliefs. PM-0333 Repeated pairing of a sound with a receptive state conditions the sound to induce that state. PM-0364 A neutral cue repeatedly paired with a meaningful one comes to trigger the same response. PM-0851 Acting on a tentative belief strengthens that belief as the mind justifies the action. PM-1353 Reading and affirmations do not install beliefs; enactment does. PM-0104 A recent exposure influences a belief more than many older exposures.
5	0.20	favours intervention	-0.35 to 0.9	The framework says reactivation strengthens what attentive training already stored (each retrieval re-books; no render exceeds the library), and cues paired with training carry the entry, so direction favours TMR. Daily MyoCI practice supplies the daytime use that promotes consolidated entries. But cues in slow-wave sleep resemble the drip, where single exposures book almost nothing, and the outcome is a level-4 motor function measure, not a felt state. With about 17 per arm across four arms, a chronic moderate-severe stroke population and a noisy timed WMFT, a modest true effect will probably not reach significance against sham. The effect is expected to be small and positive, and the primary contrast is likely underpowered. Moderator: All-phase TMR should outperform SWS-only TMR: the framework holds that deep sleep resembles the drip, where renders are nearly weightless, while sleep thresholds (captured by all-stage cueing) are the installer's quadrant. Claims cited (10) PM-0095 Actively retrieving a memory strengthens it. PM-0096 People can only change toward states they can imagine, and they can only imagine from stored experience. PM-0129 Repeated exposure to stimuli that are never consciously noticed increases liking for them. PM-0130 A single subliminal exposure has negligible effect on beliefs or choices. PM-0132 At the transitions into and out of sleep, when people are attentive but not critical, they are especially open to adopting new beliefs. PM-0333 Repeated pairing of a sound with a receptive state conditions the sound to induce that state. PM-0364 A neutral cue repeatedly paired with a meaningful one comes to trigger the same response. PM-0851 Acting on a tentative belief strengthens that belief as the mind justifies the action. PM-0104 A recent exposure influences a belief more than many older exposures. PM-0061 Repeated experience makes a response automatic.