MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126385695 · doi:10.2147/jpr.s290795

How fMRI Analysis Using Structural Equation Modeling Techniques Can Improve Our Understanding of Pain Processing in Fibromyalgia

2021· article· en· W3126385695 on OpenAlexafffund
Howard J. M. Warren, Gabriela Ioachim, Jocelyn M. Powers, Patrick W. Stroman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pain Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsFibromyalgiaMedicineFunctional magnetic resonance imagingStructural equation modelingChronic painPhysical medicine and rehabilitationArtificial intelligencePhysical therapyMachine learningComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the utility of data-driven analyses of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, by means of structural equation modeling, for the investigation of pain processing in fibromyalgia (FM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Datasets from two separate pain fMRI studies involving healthy controls (HC) and participants with FM were re-analyzed using both a conventional model-driven approach and a data-driven approach, and the results from these analyses were compared. The first dataset contained 15 women with FM and 15 women as healthy controls. The second dataset contained 15 women with FM and 11 women as healthy controls. RESULTS: Consistent with previous studies, the model-driven analyses did not identify differences in pain processing between the HC and FM study groups in both datasets. On the other hand, the data-driven analyses identified significant group differences in both datasets. CONCLUSION: Data-driven analyses can enhance our understanding of pain processing in healthy controls and in clinical populations by identifying activity associated with pain processing specific to the clinical groups that conventional model-driven analyses may miss.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.166
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pain ResearchSame topicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207