MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413270506 · doi:10.1093/brain/awaf307

Brain signatures of nociplastic pain: Fibromyalgia Index and descending modulation at population level

2025· article· en· W4413270506 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Eoin Kelleher, Frederik Lange, Vishvarani Wanigasekera, Trishna Rathod‐Mistry, Thomas E. Nichols, Ben Seymour, Irene Tracey, Andrew R. Segerdahl, Anushka Soni

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFaculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares UniversityMedical Research CouncilVersus ArthritisNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchPfizer UKMedical Research Council CanadaDepartment of Health and Social CareWellcome TrustPfizer
KeywordsFibromyalgiaPopulationMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeurosciencePsychologyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nociplastic pain is defined by altered nociceptive processing in the absence of clear peripheral damage or somatosensory lesions. The Fibromyalgia Index (FMI), derived from the 2016 diagnostic criteria, is increasingly used as a marker of nociplastic pain severity in clinical studies, yet its neurobiological validity remains untested at scale. Using multimodal neuroimaging data from over 40 000 participants in UK Biobank, we examined whether FMI scores were associated with altered functional and structural connectivity within the descending pain modulatory system (DPMS), a brain network involved in endogenous pain control and implicated in nociplastic pain conditions. Functional connectivity was assessed using resting-state functional MRI (rfMRI), and structural connectivity using diffusion-weighted MRI (dMRI) tractography. Connectivity was quantified between seven DPMS regions: periaqueductal grey (PAG), rostral ventromedial medulla (RVM), hypothalamus, amygdala, rostral and subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (rACC, sgACC), and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC). Multi-group structural equation models tested associations between FMI scores and connectivity, stratified by chronic pain status. Mediation models evaluated which aspects of nociplastic pain accounted for the observed associations: widespread pain and SPACE symptoms (sleep disturbance, pain, affect, cognitive problems, and low energy). To assess specificity, we repeated analyses using the Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4), a measure of neuropathic pain, and average pain intensity as comparison outcomes. In 22 139 individuals with chronic pain (58% female; mean age 64.8, standard deviation 7.59), FMI scores were associated with altered structural connectivity between the PAG and amygdala [β = 0.023, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.0087 to 0.039; Pcorr = 0.0125] and between the PAG and hypothalamus (β = -0.029, 95% CI: -0.043 to -0.015; Pcorr = 0.0013). Functional connectivity in the same circuits showed smaller effects. These associations were not observed in individuals without chronic pain. Mediation analyses revealed that PAG-amygdala and PAG-hypothalamus connectivity were partially explained by fatigue, sleep duration, and widespread pain. DPMS connectivity was not significantly associated with neuropathic pain or average pain intensity. These findings suggest that FMI scores reflect biologically meaningful changes in brain connectivity, particularly in subcortical DPMS circuits implicated in affective and homeostatic dimensions of pain. Structural connectivity was more strongly associated with FMI than functional measures, possibly reflecting cumulative effects of chronic pain on white matter architecture. The absence of similar associations for other pain outcomes supports the specificity of FMI as a marker of nociplastic pain severity. These results provide a neurobiological basis for the FMI and support its use in population research and biomarker development for nociplastic 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207