↓ Skip to main content

Possible contribution of quantum-like correlations to the placebo effect: consequences on blind trials

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Possible contribution of quantum-like correlations to the placebo effect: consequences on blind trials
Published in
Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12976-017-0058-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francis Beauvais

Abstract

Factors that participate in the biological changes associated with a placebo are not completely understood. Natural evolution, mean regression, concomitant procedures and other non specific effects are well-known factors that contribute to the "placebo effect". In this article, we suggest that quantum-like correlations predicted by a probabilistic modeling could also play a role. An elementary experiment in biology or medicine comparing the biological changes associated with two placebos is modeled. The originality of this modeling is that experimenters, biological system and their interactions are described together from the standpoint of a participant who is uninvolved in the measurement process. Moreover, the small random probability fluctuations of a "real" experiment are also taken into account. If both placebos are inert (with only different labels), common sense suggests that the biological changes associated with the two placebos should be comparable. However, the consequence of this modeling is the possibility for two placebos to be associated with different outcomes due to the emergence of quantum-like correlations. The association of two placebos with different outcomes is counterintuitive and this modeling could give a framework for some unexplained observations where mere placebos are compared (in some alternative medicines for example). This hypothesis can be tested in blind trials by comparing local vs. remote assessment of correlations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Professor 2 15%
Researcher 2 15%
Student > Master 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Psychology 1 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 8%
Neuroscience 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 7 54%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 October 2019.
All research outputs
#8,496,986
of 16,088,023 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling
#105
of 261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,763
of 273,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,088,023 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,406 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them