Analgesic and placebo effects of thalamic stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous clinical studies have reported successful relief of chronic pain with sensory thalamic stimulation. However, even with the extensive use of sensory thalamic stimulation as a clinical tool in the relief of chronic pain, the results are still inconsistent. This discrepancy could probably be explained by the fact that the majority of these studies are case reports or retrospective analyses, which have often used imprecise pain measurements that do not allow a rigorous statistical evaluation of pain relief. None of these studies measured the effect of stimulation on clinical pain for longer than a few hours per day, which is an important aspect considering that clinical pain can vary over time. Moreover, placebo controls are seldom included. In the current study, we measured patients' pain perception at home over a 2-week period, both during days of normal stimulation of the sensory thalamus and during days without stimulation. Patients also came to the laboratory to assess the effects of thalamic and placebo stimulation on clinical pain, experimental heat pain, innocuous air puff and visual stimulation. A potential relation between the perceived paresthesia and analgesic efficacy during thalamic and placebo stimulation was also explored. We found that thalamic stimulation significantly affected clinical and experimental pain perception, but that an important placebo component also exists. On the other hand, neither thalamic nor placebo stimulation affected air puff and visual ratings, suggesting that the effect applies specifically to pain and hence is not caused by a general change in attention. The level of paresthesia elicited during the placebo manipulation was also directly correlated with the degree of placebo pain relief. These results suggest that thalamic stimulation produces a small but significant reduction in pain perception, but that a significant placebo effect also exists.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".