Brain imaging signatures of neuropathic facial pain derived by artificial intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in neuroimaging have permitted the non-invasive examination of the human brain in pain. However, a persisting challenge is in the objective differentiation of neuropathic facial pain subtypes, as diagnosis is based on patients' symptom descriptions. We use artificial intelligence (AI) models with neuroimaging data to distinguish subtypes of neuropathic facial pain and differentiate them from healthy controls. We conducted a retrospective analysis of diffusion tensor and T1-weighted imaging data using random forest and logistic regression AI models on 371 adults with trigeminal pain (265 classical trigeminal neuralgia (CTN), 106 trigeminal neuropathic pain (TNP)) and 108 healthy controls (HC). These models distinguished CTN from HC with up to 95% accuracy, and TNP from HC with up to 91% accuracy. Both classifiers identified gray and white matter-based predictive metrics (gray matter thickness, surface area, and volume; white matter diffusivity metrics) that significantly differed across groups. Classification of TNP and CTN did not show significant accuracy (51%) but highlighted two structures that differed between pain groups-the insula and orbitofrontal cortex. Our work demonstrates that AI models with brain imaging data alone can differentiate neuropathic facial pain subtypes from healthy data and identify regional structural indicates of pain.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".