MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406558870 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2025.01.009

Functional MRI reveals brain activation patterns associated with optimization of spinal cord stimulation parameters in treating chronic pain

2025· letter· en· W4406558870 on OpenAlexaff
Artur Vetkas, Cletus Cheyuo, Ajmal Zemmar, Brendan Santyr, Clement T. Chow, Sriranga Kashyap, Benson P. Yang, Mia Mojica, Alexandre Boutet, Can Sarica, Jürgen Germann, Stefan Lang, Mohammad Mehdi Hajiabadi, Andrew Yang, Simon J. Graham, Kâmil Uludaǧ, Anuj Bhatia, Andrés M. Lozano

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2025
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkToronto Rehabilitation InstituteSunnybrook Health Science CentreOntario Brain InstituteWestern UniversityToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpinal cord stimulationMedicineChronic painStimulationSpinal cordFunctional connectivityNeuroscienceAnesthesiaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is widely used to manage chronic pain, yet its supraspinal mechanisms remain incompletely understood [1]. Chronic pain affects up to 20 % of individuals globally and is a leading cause of disability, often accompanied by emotional distress, opioid dependence, and diminished quality of life [2–4]. Increasing evidence suggests that SCS modulates both the sensory-discriminative, and affective - cognitive dimensions of pain [5]. Although SCS can offer substantial relief, responses vary, and robust biomarkers to guide personalized programming - especially in the era of novel waveforms and high-density leads - are lacking.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain stimulationSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207