Individual differences in conditioned pain modulation are associated with alpha oscillations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Conditioned pain modulation (CPM), the change in pain evoked by a test stimulus at 1 body site by a conditioning stimulus at another site, varies across individuals, ranging from inhibition (pain decreases) to no CPM to facilitation (pain increases). Given the role of alpha oscillations in pain, we examined the relationship between CPM and peak alpha frequency (PAF) and power in the dynamic pain connectome (DPC). In 68 healthy individuals who underwent resting-state magnetoencephalography and a heat-based CPM evaluation, 32% had inhibitory CPM, 49% had facilitatory CPM, and 19% had no CPM. The facilitatory subgroup had lower alpha power in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) compared with the inhibitory subgroup and across the DPC (mPFC, right thalamus, bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [dlPFC]) compared with the noCPM subgroup. Peak alpha frequency in the thalamus bilaterally was strongly correlated with inhibitory CPM (higher PAF with stronger inhibitory CPM). The subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (sgACC) PAF was correlated with inhibitory CPM in males and females in opposite directions, but not at the whole subgroup level. The pressure-based CPM evoked inhibitory CPM in 87% of the 45 individuals tested; the relationship with PAF in the right dlPFC and sgACC had medium-strong effect sizes driven by males (higher PAF with weaker inhibitory CPM). This study indicates that the role of alpha oscillations in CPM is paradigm- and sex-dependent. Our findings that healthy individuals exhibit an alpha-CPM relationship, particularly in the prefrontal regions and sgACC, provide insight into the potential therapeutic use of targeted neuromodulation for 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".