Brain pathways of pain empathy activated by pained facial expressions: a meta-analysis of fMRI using the activation likelihood estimation method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to summarize and analyze the brain signal patterns of empathy for pain caused by facial expressions of pain utilizing activation likelihood estimation, a meta-analysis method. DATA SOURCES: Studies concerning the brain mechanism were searched from the Science Citation Index, Science Direct, PubMed, DeepDyve, Cochrane Library, SinoMed, Wanfang, VIP, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and other databases, such as SpringerLink, AMA, Science Online, Wiley Online, were collected. A time limitation of up to 13 December 2016 was applied to this study. DATA SELECTION: Studies presenting with all of the following criteria were considered for study inclusion: Use of functional magnetic resonance imaging, neutral and pained facial expression stimuli, involvement of adult healthy human participants over 18 years of age, whose empathy ability showed no difference from the healthy adult, a painless basic state, results presented in Talairach or Montreal Neurological Institute coordinates, multiple studies by the same team as long as they used different raw data. OUTCOME MEASURES: Activation likelihood estimation was used to calculate the combined main activated brain regions under the stimulation of pained facial expression. RESULTS: Eight studies were included, containing 178 subjects. Meta-analysis results suggested that the anterior cingulate cortex (BA32), anterior central gyrus (BA44), fusiform gyrus, and insula (BA13) were activated positively as major brain areas under the stimulation of pained facial expression. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that pained facial expression alone, without viewing of painful stimuli, activated brain regions related to pain empathy, further contributing to revealing the brain's mechanisms of pain empathy.
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 | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".