Deactivation of Distant Pain-Related RegionsInduced by 20-day rTMS: A Case Study of Oneweek Pain Relief for Long-Term IntractableDeafferentation Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deafferentation pain secondary to brachial plexus avulsion, spinal cord injury, and other peripheral nerve injuries is often refractory to conventional treatments. Stimulation of the primary motor cortex (M1) has been proven to be an effective treatment for intractable deafferentation pain. The mechanisms underlying the attenuation of deafferentation pain by motor cortex stimulation remain hypothetical. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this case report is to: (1) summarize a case in which a patient suffering chronic intractable deafferentation pain for 25 years underwent rTMS treatment over M1, (2) describe the evidence from PET imaging, and (3) reveal a possible relief mechanism with cortical plasticity. STUDY DESIGN: Case report. SETTING: University hospital. RESULTS: This patient had successful pain control with no transient or lasting side effects. The pain relief remained stable for at least one week. At the end of the 20-day procedure, pain relief was obtained according to the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (-34.6%) and the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) (-31.6%). In the PET/CT scans, the glucose metabolism was significantly reduced contralaterally to the pain side in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), insula, and caudate nucleus. There was no statistically significant difference in any other cortical area. LIMITATIONS: Single case of a patient with long-term intractable deafferentation pain having a PET study. CONCLUSION: This study implies that a single session of 20 Hz rTMS over the motor cortex could reduce the pain level in patients suffering from long-term, intractable deafferentation pain. The stimulation of the M1 induces deactivation in the ACC, insula, and caudate nucleus. The changes in these pain-related regions may mirror an adaptive mechanism to pain relief after rTMS treatment.
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 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".