Multiple Brain Networks Mediating Stimulus–Pain Relationships in Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The brain transforms nociceptive input into a complex pain experience comprised of sensory, affective, motivational, and cognitive components. However, it is still unclear how pain arises from nociceptive input and which brain networks coordinate to generate pain experiences. We introduce a new high-dimensional mediation analysis technique to estimate distributed, network-level patterns that formally mediate the relationship between stimulus intensity and pain. We applied the model to a large-scale analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging data (N = 284), focusing on brain mediators of the relationship between noxious stimulus intensity and trial-to-trial variation in pain reports. We identify mediators in both traditional nociceptive pathways and in prefrontal, midbrain, striatal, and default-mode regions unrelated to nociception in standard analyses. The whole-brain mediators are specific for pain versus aversive sounds and are organized into five functional networks. Brain mediators predicted pain ratings better than previous brain measures, including the neurologic pain signature (Wager et al. 2013). Our results provide a broader view of the networks underlying pain experience, as well as novel brain targets for interventions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".