Functional Neuroimaging of Nociceptive and Pain‐Related Activity in the Spinal Cord and Brain: Insights From Neurovascular Coupling Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spinal cord and brain processes underlie pain perception, which produces systemic cardiovascular changes. In turn, the autonomic nervous system regulates vascular function in the spinal cord and brain in order to adapt to these systemic changes, while neuronal activity induces local vascular changes. Thus, autonomic regulation and pain processes in the brain and spinal cord are tightly linked and interrelated. The objective of this topical review is to discuss work on neurovascular coupling during nociceptive processing in order to highlight supporting evidence and limitations for the use of cerebral and spinal fMRI to investigate pain mechanisms and spinal nociceptive processes. Work on functional neuroimaging of pain is presented and discussed in relation to available neurovascular coupling studies and related issues. Perspectives on future work are also discussed with an emphasis on differences between the brain and the spinal cord and on different approaches that may be useful to improve current methods, data analyses and interpretation. In summary, this review highlights the lack of data on neurovascular coupling during nociceptive stimulation and indicates that hemodynamic and BOLD responses measured with fMRI may be biased by nonspecific vascular changes. Future neuroimaging studies on nociceptive and pain-related processes would gain further understanding of neurovascular coupling in the brain and spinal cord and should take into account the effects of systemic vascular changes that may affect hemodynamic responses. Anat Rec, 301:1585-1595, 2018. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".