A 5000-year overview of the history of pain through ancient civilizations to modern pain theories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain and its management have been a predominant issue since the dawn of humanity. Pain has been the subject of much controversy and has constantly evolved across societies. The objective of this review is to trace the historical evolution of the concept of pain through the ages and to attempt to understand how modern theories of pain represent a legacy of ancestral knowledge passed down from culture to culture. We conducted a comprehensive review of primary and secondary sources across 6 major historical periods, including Pre-history, Antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Modern, and Contemporary eras, using academic databases, specialized libraries, and historical archives. Results shows that during ancient civilizations, the understanding of pain oscillated between religious beliefs and medical advances. Antiquity societies made significant contributions to the understanding of pain mechanisms and management. Contrary to popular belief, significant advances were made during the Middle Ages despite the important impact of religion on the era's conceptualization of pain. During the Renaissance, the influence of religion waned, and secular medicine made significant progress. The development of pain theories peaked in the 19th century with technological advances. Long considered an expression of internal suffering, pain has fascinated humanity throughout history. The way pain has been perceived, understood, and treated has changed greatly over the centuries. This historical scientific review allows us to keep in mind that the vision we have of pain in Western society is predominantly based on the concrete heritage of ancient civilizations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".