Cross-Domain Validation of the MFY Three-Variable Steady-State Model: A Unified Causal Framework for Expectation-Driven Medical Phenomena
Year: 2026
Type: preprint
Abstract: Compared with V3.0: V4.0 (1) Unified terminology — the model is renamed the “MFY Expectation Emergence Model”; the asymmetric filtering narrative is upgraded to trust-based adjudication language; the “dimensional ascent/maintenance/descent” trichotomy is replaced by the “steady-state / repair / destabilization” three operational states; and the hypothesis is renamed the “trust gradient”; (2) Clarified notation criterion — F₁/F₂ are distinguished by a single criterion, namely whether a signal has passed through the Y layer; only F₁ signals are exchanged across subjects; (3) Completed core concepts — Y is defined as the judgment standard directly generated by M (“expectation as the standard itself”), and the operation of the Y layer is specified as two stages: filtering adjudication and reconstruction; (4) The system-admission criterion is unified from “subjectivity” to “expectation-encoding capacity”; (5) §5.2 is restructured into a criterion-based scope statement, with boundary cases handled via the parallel-pathway analysis; (6) The structured abstract is rewritten as a tiered presentation explicitly listing four deliverable theoretical assets; (7) The variable-mapping sections are recalibrated to the standard-level formulation of Y, and the treatment-adherence section adds a multi-source trust-competition mechanism; (8) The reference list is updated with corrected DOIs and five new entries, with citation corrections and language cleanup completed throughout. Abstract Background: Existing homeostatic and intervention theories lack a systematic account of the status of expectation (Y) in the causal chain: Y is either treated as one moderator among many, or handled as a continuous precision weight without an explicit entry point for intervention. The MFY Expectation Emergence Model natively proposes—originating from a single extreme case of psychological collapse and complete self-healing without external intervention—the hypothesis that expectation Y is the only legitimate target of intervention; yet its cross-domain boundary of applicability remains to be rigorously demarcated. Objective and Method: This study constitutes a theoretical and literature-based analysis. Taking “whether the effect of an intervention requires mediation by the patient’s expectation Y” as the categorical criterion, it maps four evidence-grade scenarios—the placebo effect, hypnotic intervention, treatment adherence, and patient–physician interaction—onto the MFY closed loop M₁→F₁→Y→F₂→M₂ one by one for isomorphism testing; psychological decision-making (Psy-TT) and neuroplasticity are incorporated as exploratory extensions; purely biological causal-chain scenarios serve as negative controls calibrating the meaning of this criterion. Results: All four evidence-grade scenarios conform to the fixed closed-loop structure, each providing one class of independent verification: the placebo effect furnishes the purest empirical demonstration of Y’s independent causal power; hypnotic intervention realizes controllable manipulation of the F₁→Y transmission chain; treatment adherence exhibits a cross-disease unified mechanism of the Y→behavioral investment (F₁) chain; patient–physician interaction reveals the complete structure of cross-subject transmission. Two exploratory scenarios provide further corroboration: neuroplasticity yields mirror-image evidence of Y-driven neural reorganization through the contrast between VR-wing training and prosthesis rejection; psychological decision-making offers a formalized embedding of decision thresholds. Multiple lines of evidence converge on one conclusion: expectation Y plays a key mediating role in systems possessing expectation-encoding capacity. Boundary: The legitimate explanatory domain of the MFY framework comprises expectation-driven scenarios; purely biological causal-chain scenarios lie outside the framework (the territory of conventional medicine) and serve solely as negative controls; both pathways may coexist within the same patient without displacing each other. Three classes of systems are explicitly excluded: systems lacking a stable endogenous anchor (e.g., cancer-cell clonal evolution), systems whose anchors cannot be identified, and minimal linear stimulus–response systems. Conclusion and Deliverables: This article delivers four auditable theoretical assets: (1) the “expectation-as-mediator” categorical criterion; (2) the applicability-boundary system, including the three-class exclusion and the parallel-pathway analysis; (3) the cross-subject transmission model; and (4) five sets of empirically testable hypotheses with framework-level falsification criteria, inviting independent verification and critical examination by domain researchers.
Author: Yi, Baichen
Language: English
Subfield: Psychiatry and Mental health
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W7154181158
Cites:
Cited by:
Related to: