Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33949957›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021

Pain Assessment Tool With Electrodermal Activity for Postoperative Patients: Method Validation Study.

Seyed Amir Hossein Aqajari, Rui Cao, Emad Kasaeyan Naeini, Michael-David Calderon, Kai Zheng, Nikil Dutt, Pasi Liljeberg, Sanna Salanterä, Ariana M Nelson, Amir M Rahmani

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Multimodal physiological sensing for the assessment of acute pain.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Consumer Wearables for Patient Monitoring in Otolaryngology: A State of the Art Review.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Seyed Amir Hossein AqajariDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1747-6980
Rui CaoDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9295-8299
Emad Kasaeyan NaeiniDepartment of Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7438-2641
Michael-David CalderonDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6824-6945
Kai ZhengDepartment of Informatics, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4121-4948
Nikil DuttDepartment of Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3060-8119
Pasi LiljebergDepartment of Future Technology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-9392-3589
Sanna SalanteräDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-2529-6699
Ariana M NelsonDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1575-1635
Amir M RahmaniDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0725-1155
University of California, Irvine · USUniversity of Turku · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate, objective pain assessment is required in the health care domain and clinical settings for appropriate pain management. Automated, objective pain detection from physiological data in patients provides valuable information to hospital staff and caregivers to better manage pain, particularly for patients who are unable to self-report. Galvanic skin response (GSR) is one of the physiologic signals that refers to the changes in sweat gland activity, which can identify features of emotional states and anxiety induced by varying pain levels. This study used different statistical features extracted from GSR data collected from postoperative patients to detect their pain intensity. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work building pain models using postoperative adult patients instead of healthy subjects.

objectiveThe goal of this study was to present an automatic pain assessment tool using GSR signals to predict different pain intensities in noncommunicative, postoperative patients.

methodsThe study was designed to collect biomedical data from postoperative patients reporting moderate to high pain levels. We recruited 25 participants aged 23-89 years. First, a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) unit was employed to obtain patients' baseline data. In the second part, the Empatica E4 wristband was worn by patients while they were performing low-intensity activities. Patient self-report based on the numeric rating scale (NRS) was used to record pain intensities that were correlated with objectively measured data. The labels were down-sampled from 11 pain levels to 5 different pain intensities, including the baseline. We used 2 different machine learning algorithms to construct the models. The mean decrease impurity method was used to find the top important features for pain prediction and improve the accuracy. We compared our results with a previously published research study to estimate the true performance of our models.

resultsFour different binary classification models were constructed using each machine learning algorithm to classify the baseline and other pain intensities (Baseline [BL] vs Pain Level [PL] 1, BL vs PL2, BL vs PL3, and BL vs PL4). Our models achieved higher accuracy for the first 3 pain models than the BioVid paper approach despite the challenges in analyzing real patient data. For BL vs PL1, BL vs PL2, and BL vs PL4, the highest prediction accuracies were achieved when using a random forest classifier (86.0, 70.0, and 61.5, respectively). For BL vs PL3, we achieved an accuracy of 72.1 using a k-nearest-neighbor classifier.

conclusionsWe are the first to propose and validate a pain assessment tool to predict different pain levels in real postoperative adult patients using GSR signals. We also exploited feature selection algorithms to find the top important features related to different pain intensities. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/17783.

Indexed as

Galvanic Skin ResponseMachine LearningAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsHumansMiddle AgedPainPain MeasurementYoung Adultelectrodermal activityhealth monitoringmachine learningpain assessmentpost-op patientsrecognitionwearable electronics

Identifiers

PMID33949957
PMCPMC8135033
OpenAlexW3151498753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.