MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neural Correlates of Cognitive Modulation of Pain Perception in the Human Brainstem and Cervical Spinal Cord using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Review

2016· review· en· W2384099710 on OpenAlexaff
Roxanne H. Leung, Patrick W. Stroman

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunctional magnetic resonance imagingNeuroscienceCognitionBrainstemPsychologyNeuroimagingNeurophysiologySensory systemChronic painSpinal cordPopulationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pain is a multifaceted and malleable sensory experience that is processed at all levels of the central nervous system (CNS). The experience of pain can vary widely across a healthy population and even within an individual and can be influenced by cognitive factors such as attention, expectation, suggestion, and attitudes. The neurophysiological role of attention in cognitive modulation of pain is the focus for the work presented in this review. Behavioral studies show that pain perception was reduced under cognitive loads that placed a continuous demand on executive functions such as working memory. Neuroimaging, pharmacological studies, and electrophysiological studies provide evidence that the underpinnings of cognitive modulation of pain involve a network of descending modulation of pain among cortical and brainstem structures. However, the role and relationship of subcortical regions in the brainstem and spinal cord during cognitive modulation of pain are not well understood. This review examines the neurophysiology of pain, processing in the CNS, and how cognitive factors such as attention can modulate nociceptive signaling and alter the perception of pain, especially at the subcortical level.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Biomedical EngineeringSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207