Evoked pain intensity representation is distributed across brain systems: A multistudy mega-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Information is coded in the brain at different scales for different phenomena: locally, distributed across regions and networks, and globally. For pain, the scale of representation is controversial. Although generally believed to be an integrated cognitive and sensory phenomenon implicating diverse brain systems, quantitative characterizations of which regions and networks are sufficient to represent pain are lacking. In this meta-analysis (or mega-analysis) using data from 289 participants across 10 studies, we use model comparison combined with multivariate predictive models to investigate the spatial scale and location of acute pain representation. We compare models based on (a) a single most pain-predictive module, either previously identified elementary regions or a single best large-scale cortical resting-state network module; (b) selected cortical-subcortical systems related to evoked pain in prior literature (‘multi-system models’); and (c) a model spanning the full brain. We estimate the accuracy of pain intensity predictions using cross validation (7 studies) and subsequently validate in three independent holdout studies. All spatial scales convey information about pain intensity, but distributed, multi-system models better characterize pain representations than any individual region or network (e.g. multisystem models explain >20% more of individual subject pain ratings than the best elementary region). Full brain models showed no predictive advantage over multi-system models. These findings quantify the extent that representation of evoked pain experience is distributed across multiple cortical and subcortical systems, show that pain representation is not circumscribed by any elementary region or conical network, and provide a blueprint for identifying the spatial scale of information in other domains. Significance Statement We define modular, multisystem and global views of brain function, use multivariate fMRI decoding to characterize pain representations at each level, and provide evidence for a multisystem representation of evoked pain. We further show that local views necessarily exclude important components of pain representation, while a global full brain representation is superfluous, even though both are viable frameworks for representing pain. These findings quantitatively juxtapose and reconcile divergent conclusions from evoked pain studies within a generalized neuroscientific framework, and provide a blueprint for investigating representational architecture for diverse brain processes. Author Note Data storage supported by the University of Colorado Boulder “PetaLibrary”. Research funded by NIMH R01 MH076136, NIDA R01 DA046064 and NIDA R01 DA035484. Lauren Atlas is supported in part by funding from the Intramural Research Program of the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institutes of Health (ZIA-AT000030). Marina Lopez-Sola is supported by a Serra Hunter fellow lecturer program. We would like to thank Dr. Christian Buchel for contributing data to this project, and Dr. Marta Čeko for comments and feedback on the manuscript.
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 | 0.035 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".