MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310368235 · doi:10.3389/fpain.2022.1001148

Effect of spinal anesthesia-induced deafferentation on pain processing in healthy male volunteers: A task-related fMRI study

2022· article· en· W4310368235 on OpenAlexaff
Elske Sitsen, Najmeh Khalili‐Mahani, Mischa de Rover, Albert Dahan, Marieke Niesters

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pain Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnesthesiaFunctional magnetic resonance imagingDermatomeMedicineNoxious stimulusSensory systemSpinal anesthesiaVisual analogue scaleSomatosensory systemDiffuse noxious inhibitory controlPsychologyNociceptionNeuroscienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Spinal anesthesia causes short-term deafferentation and alters the crosstalk among brain regions involved in pain perception and pain modulation. In the current study, we examined the effect of spinal anesthesia on pain response to noxious thermal stimuli in non-deafferented skin areas using a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) paradigm. Methods: Twenty-two healthy subjects participated in the study. We performed a task-based fMRI study using a randomized crossover design. Subjects were scanned under two conditions (spinal anesthesia or control) at two-time points: before and after spinal anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia resulted in sensory loss up to dermatome Th6. Calibrated heat-pain stimuli were administered to the right forearm (C8-Th1) using a box-car design (blocks of 10s on/25s off) during MRI scanning. Pain perception was measured using a visual analogue scale (1-100) at the beginning and the end of each session. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine the effect of intervention by time by order on pain scores. Similarly, higher-level effects were tested with appropriate general linear models (accounting for within-subject variations in session and time) to examine: (1) Differences in BOLD response to pain stimulus under spinal anesthesia versus control; and (2) Effects of spinal anesthesia on pain-related modulation of the cerebral activation. Results: Complete fMRI data was available for eighteen participants. Spinal anesthesia was associated with moderate pain score increase. Significant differences in brain response to noxious thermal stimuli were present in comparison of spinal versus control condition (post-pre). Spinal condition was associated with higher BOLD signal in the bilateral inferior parietal lobule and lower BOLD signal in bilateral postcentral and precentral gyrus. Within the angular regions, we observed a positive correlation between pain scores and BOLD signal. These observations were independent from order effect (whether the spinal anesthesia was administered in the first or the second visit). However, we did observe order effect on brain regions including medial prefrontal regions, possibly related to anticipation of the experience of spinal anesthesia. Conclusions: The loss of sensory and motor activity caused by spinal anesthesia has a significant impact on brain regions involved in the sensorimotor and cognitive processing of noxious heat pain stimuli. Our results indicate that the anticipation or experience of a strong somatosensory response to the spinal intervention might confound and contribute to increased sensitivity to cognitive pain processing. Future studies must account for individual differences in subjective experience of pain sensation within the experimental context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Pain ResearchSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207