Accurate classification of pain experiences using wearable electroencephalography in adolescents with and without chronic musculoskeletal pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective We assessed the potential of using EEG to detect cold thermal pain in adolescents with and without chronic musculoskeletal pain. Methods Thirty-nine healthy controls (15.2 ± 2.1 years, 18 females) and 121 chronic pain participants (15.0 ± 2.0 years, 100 females, 85 experiencing pain ≥12-months) had 19-channel EEG recorded at rest and throughout a cold-pressor task (CPT). Permutation entropy, directed phase lag index, peak frequency, and binary graph theory features were calculated across 10-second EEG epochs (Healthy: 292 baseline / 273 CPT epochs; Pain: 1039 baseline / 755 CPT epochs). Support vector machine (SVM) and logistic regression models were trained to classify between baseline and CPT conditions separately for control and pain participants. Results SVM models significantly distinguished between baseline and CPT conditions in chronic pain (75.2% accuracy, 95% CI: 71.4%–77.1%; p < 0.0001) and control (74.8% accuracy, 95% CI: 66.3%–77.6%; p < 0.0001) participants. Logistic regression models performed similar to the SVM (Pain: 75.8% accuracy, 95% CI: 69.5%–76.6%, p < 0.0001; Controls: 72.0% accuracy, 95% CI: 64.5%–78.5%, p < 0.0001). Permutation entropy features in the theta frequency band were the largest contributor to model accuracy for both groups. Conclusions Our results demonstrate that subjective pain experiences can accurately be detected from electrophysiological data, and represent the first step towards the development of a point-of-care system to detect pain in the absence of self-report.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".