MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417091371 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0337726

Classification of chronic pain and spinal cord stimulation response using machine learning in magnetoencephalography data

2025· article· en· W4417091371 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bart Witjes, Martijn P. A. Starmans, Frank Huygen, Cecile C. de Vos

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRéseau québécois de recherche sur la douleur
KeywordsChronic painMagnetoencephalographySpinal cordStimulationDorsumOutcome (game theory)Alpha (finance)Neurophysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Due to the complexity of pain, involving physical, psychological, emotional and social aspects, we are still unable to objectively quantify or fully understand this subjective experience. An increasing number of studies have attempted to identify biomarkers of pain using brain imaging tools like magnetoencephalography (MEG). In this study, we used machine learning to investigate the potential of MEG data as a biomarker for chronic pain and used this biomarker to quantify spinal cord stimulation (SCS) treatment effect. METHODS: The study population consisted of 25 patients with SCS, for whom we recorded resting-state MEG during tonic, burst and sham stimulation, 25 patients with chronic pain and 25 pain-free controls. We derived average power spectral densities across each of the 94 automated anatomical labeling atlas based brain regions and extracted six spectral features: the alpha peak frequency, alpha power ratio, and average power across the theta, alpha, beta, and low-gamma bands. Based on these features, we used automated machine learning to find the optimal combination of machine learning methods to create classification and regression models for pain and pain intensity. RESULTS: The theta power and alpha power ratio were the most promising features to classify chronic pain with an accuracy of 76%. The classification model outputs and self-reported pain scores of patients with SCS showed a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.12. A regression model based on pain scores of all participants showed Spearman correlation coefficients between 0.27 and 0.41. CONCLUSION: This study achieved a promising 76% accuracy in classifying patients with chronic pain and pain-free controls using the theta power or alpha power ratio. However, this model's output poorly correlated with pain scores of patients with SCS. A larger variety of input features and outcome parameters is recommended.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicPain Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→