MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395954805 · doi:10.1101/2024.04.23.590862

A Computational Framework for Understanding the Impact of Prior Experiences on Pain Perception and Neuropathic Pain

2024· preprint· en· W4395954805 on OpenAlexaff
Malin Ramne, Jon Sensinger

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropathic painPerceptionPain perceptionPsychologyMedicineAnesthesiaNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pain perception is influenced not only by sensory input from afferent neurons but also by cognitive factors such as prior expectations. It has been suggested that overly precise priors may be a key contributing factor to chronic pain states such as neuropathic pain. However, it remains an open question how overly precise priors in favor of pain might arise. Here, we first verify that a Bayesian approach can describe how statistical integration of prior expectations and sensory input results in pain phenomena such as placebo hypoalgesia, nocebo hyperalgesia, chronic pain, and spontaneous neuropathic pain. Our results indicate that the value of the prior, which is determined by the internal model parameters, may be a key contributor to these phenomena. Next, we apply a hierarchical Bayesian approach to update the parameters of the internal model based on the difference between the predicted and the perceived pain, to reflect that people integrate prior experiences in their future expectations. In contrast with simpler approaches, this hierarchical model structure is able to show for placebo hypoalgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia how these phenomena can arise from prior experiences in the form of a classical conditioning procedure. We also demonstrate the phenomenon of offset analgesia, in which a disproportionally large pain decrease is obtained following a minor reduction in noxious stimulus intensity. Finally, we turn to simulations of neuropathic pain, where our hierarchical model corroborates that persistent non-neuropathic pain is a risk factor for developing neuropathic pain following denervation, and additionally offers an interesting prediction that complete absence of informative painful experiences could be a similar risk factor. Taken together, these results provide insight to how prior experiences may contribute to pain perception, in both experimental and neuropathic pain, which in turn might be informative for improving strategies of pain prevention and relief. Author summary To efficiently navigate the world and avoid harmful situations, it is beneficial to learn from prior pain experiences. This learning process typically results in certain contexts being associated with an expected level of pain, which subsequently influences pain perception. While this process of pain anticipation has evolved as a mechanism for avoiding harm, recent research indicates overly precise expectations of pain may in fact contribute to certain chronic pain conditions, in which pain persists even after tissue damage has healed, or even arises without any initiating injury. However, it remains an open question how prior experiences contribute to such overly precise expectations of pain. Here, we mathematically model the pain-learning-process. Our model successfully describes several counterintuitive but well-documented pain phenomena. We also make predictions of how prior experiences may contribute the perception of pain and how the same learning process could be leveraged to improve strategies of pain prevention and relief.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207