Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36604453›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

External validation of binary machine learning models for pain intensity perception classification from EEG in healthy individuals.

Tyler Mari, Oda Asgard, Jessica Henderson, Danielle Hewitt, Christopher Brown, Andrej Stancak, Nicholas Fallon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. [Application of support vector machine in identifying neuromodulation states in patients with zoster-associated pain].Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

7 authors.

Tyler MariDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, 2.21 Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK. Tyler.Mari@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9062-5175
Oda AsgardDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, 2.21 Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.
Jessica HendersonDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, 2.21 Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.
Danielle HewittDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, 2.21 Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.
Christopher BrownDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, 2.21 Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.
Andrej StancakDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, 2.21 Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.
Nicholas FallonDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, 2.21 Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Discrimination of pain intensity using machine learning (ML) and electroencephalography (EEG) has significant potential for clinical applications, especially in scenarios where self-report is unsuitable. However, existing research is limited due to a lack of external validation (assessing performance using novel data). We aimed for the first external validation study for pain intensity classification with EEG. Pneumatic pressure stimuli were delivered to the fingernail bed at high and low pain intensities during two independent EEG experiments with healthy participants. Study one (n = 25) was utilised for training and cross-validation. Study two (n = 15) was used for external validation one (identical stimulation parameters to study one) and external validation two (new stimulation parameters). Time-frequency features of peri-stimulus EEG were computed on a single-trial basis for all electrodes. ML training and analysis were performed on a subset of features, identified through feature selection, which were distributed across scalp electrodes and included frontal, central, and parietal regions. Results demonstrated that ML models outperformed chance. The Random Forest (RF) achieved the greatest accuracies of 73.18, 68.32 and 60.42% for cross-validation, external validation one and two, respectively. Importantly, this research is the first to externally validate ML and EEG for the classification of intensity during experimental pain, demonstrating promising performance which generalises to novel samples and paradigms. These findings offer the most rigorous estimates of ML's clinical potential for pain classification.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographyPain PerceptionHumansMachine LearningPainPain Measurement

Identifiers

PMID36604453
PMCPMC9816165

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.