Rhythmic Change of Cortical Hemodynamic Signals Associated with Ongoing Nociception in Awake and Anesthetized Individuals: An Exploratory Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing surgical procedures are vulnerable to repetitive evoked or ongoing nociceptive barrage. Using functional near infrared spectroscopy, the authors aimed to evaluate the cortical hemodynamic signal power changes during ongoing nociception in healthy awake volunteers and in surgical patients under general anesthesia. The authors hypothesized that ongoing nociception to heat or surgical trauma would induce reductions in the power of cortical low-frequency hemodynamic oscillations in a similar manner as previously reported using functional magnetic resonance imaging for ongoing pain. METHODS: Cortical hemodynamic signals during noxious stimuli from the fontopolar cortex were evaluated in two groups: group 1, a healthy/conscious group (n = 15, all males) where ongoing noxious and innocuous heat stimulus was induced by a contact thermode to the dorsum of left hand; and group 2, a patient/unconscious group (n = 13, 3 males) receiving general anesthesia undergoing knee surgery. The fractional power of low-frequency hemodynamic signals was compared across stimulation conditions in the healthy awake group, and between patients who received standard anesthesia and those who received standard anesthesia with additional regional nerve block. RESULTS: A reduction of the total fractional power in both groups-specifically, a decrease in the slow-5 frequency band (0.01 to 0.027 Hz) of oxygenated hemoglobin concentration changes over the frontopolar cortex-was observed during ongoing noxious stimuli in the healthy awake group (paired t test, P = 0.017; effect size, 0.70), and during invasive procedures in the surgery group (paired t test, P = 0.003; effect size, 2.16). The reduction was partially reversed in patients who received a regional nerve block that likely diminished afferent nociceptive activity (two-sample t test, P = 0.002; effect size, 2.34). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest common power changes in slow-wave cortical hemodynamic oscillations during ongoing nociceptive processing in conscious and unconscious states. The observed signal may potentially promote future development of a surrogate signal to assess ongoing nociception under general anesthesia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".