ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Classification of Pain Event Related Potential for Evaluation of Pain Perception Induced by Electrical Stimulation.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- EEG-based clustering shows distinct separation of chronic pain patients before spinal cord stimulation surgery.NeuroImage · 2026Article
- Pain assessment using physiological responses/markers in different types of pain: a scoping review.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Advances and challenges in neuroimaging-based pain biomarkers.Cell reports. Medicine · 2024Review
- Clinical Sensitivity of Fractal Neurodynamics.Advances in neurobiology · 2024Article
- PainVision-based evaluation of brain potentials: a novel approach for quantitative pain assessment.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Gate Mechanism and Parameter Analysis of Anodal-First Waveforms for Improving Selectivity of C-Fiber Nerves.Journal of pain research · 2021Article
- Markers of Central Neuropathic Pain in Higuchi Fractal Analysis of EEG Signals From People With Spinal Cord Injury.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Variability in individual pain sensitivity is a major problem in pain assessment. There have been studies reported using pain-event related potential (pain-ERP) for evaluating pain perception. However, none of them has achieved high accuracy in estimating multiple pain perception levels. A major reason lies in the lack of investigation of feature extraction. The goal of this study is to assess four different pain perception levels through classification of pain-ERP, elicited by transcutaneous electrical stimulation on healthy subjects. Nonlinear methods: Higuchi's fractal dimension, Grassberger-Procaccia correlation dimension, with auto-correlation, and moving variance functions were introduced into the feature extraction. Fisher score was used to select the most discriminative channels and features. As a result, the correlation dimension with a moving variance without channel selection achieved the best accuracies of 100% for both the two-level and the three-level classification but degraded to 75% for the four-level classification. The best combined feature group is the variance-based one, which achieved accuracy of 87.5% and 100% for the four-level and three-level classification, respectively. Moreover, the features extracted from less than 20 trials could not achieve sensible accuracy, which makes it difficult for an instantaneous pain perception levels evaluation. These results show strong evidence on the possibility of objective pain assessment using nonlinear feature-based classification of pain-ERP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.