An analytical review of biosensor-based chronic pain quantification in healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current clinical methods for chronic pain assessment lack objective, quantitative measures, creating a critical gap in diagnostic accuracy. This review investigates the relationship between chronic pain and key biomarkers detectable in body fluids, such as glutamate, interleukin-6, nitric oxide, and quinolinic acid. We first discuss the biological mechanisms underlying chronic pain and evaluate the relevance of these biomarkers. The review then focuses on recent advancements in non-enzymatic electrochemical biosensors used to monitor these biomarkers. For each sensor, we summarize performance metrics including sensitivity, detection limits, and linear range, while highlighting the analytical methodologies used to establish correlations between biomarker levels and pain intensity. Our findings demonstrate that quantitative analysis of biomarker fluctuations can enhance chronic pain monitoring. The integration of sensor-based biomarker analytics with clinical workflows may offer a path toward personalized treatment plans and improved decision-making in healthcare supply chains. This review emphasizes the need for continued development of high-precision biosensors as analytical tools for translating physiological signals into clinically actionable pain metrics. • Identify key biomarkers by analytics for quantifying chronic pain in real-time. • Explore biosensor innovations for monitoring chronic pain in healthcare. • Connect biomarker changes to chronic pain using a data-driven approach. • Support personalized care through sensor-driven pain measurement. • Improve pain management by integrating biosensors with health analytics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".