The Modular Organization of Pain Brain Networks: An fMRI Graph Analysis Informed by Intracranial EEG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intracranial EEG (iEEG) studies have suggested that the conscious perception of pain builds up from successive contributions of brain networks in less than 1 s. However, the functional organization of cortico-subcortical connections at the multisecond time scale, and its accordance with iEEG models, remains unknown. Here, we used graph theory with modular analysis of fMRI data from 60 healthy participants experiencing noxious heat stimuli, of whom 36 also received audio stimulation. Brain connectivity during pain was organized in four modules matching those identified through iEEG, namely: 1) sensorimotor (SM), 2) medial fronto-cingulo-parietal (default mode-like), 3) posterior parietal-latero-frontal (central executive-like), and 4) amygdalo-hippocampal (limbic). Intrinsic overlaps existed between the pain and audio conditions in high-order areas, but also pain-specific higher small-worldness and connectivity within the sensorimotor module. Neocortical modules were interrelated via "connector hubs" in dorsolateral frontal, posterior parietal, and anterior insular cortices, the antero-insular connector being most predominant during pain. These findings provide a mechanistic picture of the brain networks architecture and support fractal-like similarities between the micro-and macrotemporal dynamics associated with pain. The anterior insula appears to play an essential role in information integration, possibly by determining priorities for the processing of information and subsequent entrance into other points of the brain connectome.
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 | 0.000 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".