Alexithymia and depression may predict treatment failure in patients undergoing Gamma Knife radiosurgery for trigeminal neuralgia: the potential contribution of colored pain drawings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) effectively achieves high rates of pain control in trigeminal neuralgia (TN); however, psychological factors can also impact how individuals perceive pain and respond to treatment. The authors aimed to measure the effects of alexithymia and depression on GKRS outcomes, as well as the potential role of colored pain drawings (CPDs) in identifying patients who require additional psychological support. METHODS: Seventy-three medically intractable, typical patients with TN were included. Participants completed a visual analog scale (VAS), the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), and the Turkish version of the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II). Participants used colored pens to draw their pain patterns on standardized face charts and CPDs were categorized as expected or unexpected. Based on the Barrow Neurological Institute pain scale, patients were categorized as responders or nonresponders. RESULTS: Most patients (63%) were female, and the median age was 60 (range 27-88) years. Of 73 patients, 56 (76.7%) were responders and 17 (23.3%) were nonresponders. Forty-nine patients (67.1%) had expected CPDs, whereas 24 (32.9%) had unexpected CPDs. Responder and nonresponder groups had similar ages, genders, education, comorbidities, and initial VAS scores. Both groups preferred the colors red and black to describe intense pain (79.2% vs 67.3%, p = 0.411). Significantly better pain relief was observed in patients with expected CPDs than in those with unexpected CPDs (87.8% vs 54.2%, p = 0.003). The unexpected CPD group had significantly more alexithymia (58.3% vs 32.7%, p = 0.045). The mean BDI-II score of the cohort was 26 (range 15-37) and was significantly higher in the unexpected group (28.3 vs 24.8, p = 0.028). Unexpected CPD (OR 12.540) and higher TAS-20 score (OR 3.22) increased treatment failure risk. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of TN treatment can be influenced by psychological factors, and patients with TN with higher total TAS-20 and BDI-II scores, along with unexpected CPDs, had an increased likelihood of treatment failure. CPDs can be accessed quickly and may allow the physician to screen out most patients with unfavorable psychometrics and proceed with the necessary treatment with appropriate psychological support.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".