Resting-state electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography as biomarkers of chronic pain: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Reliable and objective biomarkers promise to improve the assessment and treatment of chronic pain. Resting-state electroencephalography (EEG) is broadly available, easy to use, and cost efficient and, therefore, appealing as a potential biomarker of chronic pain. However, results of EEG studies are heterogeneous. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021272622) of quantitative resting-state EEG and magnetoencephalography (MEG) studies in adult patients with different types of chronic pain. We excluded populations with severe psychiatric or neurologic comorbidity. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Semiquantitative data synthesis was conducted using modified albatross plots. We included 76 studies after searching MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. For cross-sectional studies that can serve to develop diagnostic biomarkers, we found higher theta and beta power in patients with chronic pain than in healthy participants. For longitudinal studies, which can yield monitoring and/or predictive biomarkers, we found no clear associations of pain relief with M/EEG measures. Similarly, descriptive studies that can yield diagnostic or monitoring biomarkers showed no clear correlations of pain intensity with M/EEG measures. Risk of bias was high in many studies and domains. Together, this systematic review synthesizes evidence on how resting-state M/EEG might serve as a diagnostic biomarker of chronic pain. Beyond, this review might help to guide future M/EEG studies on the development of pain biomarkers.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".