ArticlePain2025
Decoding pain: uncovering the factors that affect the performance of neuroimaging-based pain models.
Article in Pain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Personalized brain decoding of spontaneous pain in individuals with chronic pain.Nature neuroscience · 2026Article
- A Replicable and Generalizable Neuroimaging-Based Indicator of Pain Sensitivity Across Individuals.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Advances and challenges in neuroimaging-based pain biomarkers.Cell reports. Medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractNeuroimaging-based pain biomarkers, when combined with machine learning techniques, have demonstrated potential in decoding pain intensity and diagnosing clinical pain conditions. However, a systematic evaluation of how different modeling options affect model performance remains unexplored. This study presents the results from a comprehensive literature survey and benchmark analysis. We conducted a survey of 57 previously published articles that included neuroimaging-based predictive modeling of pain, comparing classification and prediction performance based on the following modeling variables-the levels of data, spatial scales, idiographic vs population models, and sample sizes. The findings revealed a preference for population-level modeling with brain-wide features, aligning with the goal of clinical translation of neuroimaging biomarkers. However, a systematic evaluation of the influence of different modeling options was hindered by a limited number of independent test results. This prompted us to conduct benchmark analyses using a locally collected functional magnetic resonance imaging dataset (N = 124) involving an experimental thermal pain task. The results demonstrated that data levels, spatial scales, and sample sizes significantly impact model performance. Specifically, incorporating more pain-related brain regions, increasing sample sizes, and averaging less data during training and more data during testing improved performance. These findings offer useful guidance for developing neuroimaging-based biomarkers, underscoring the importance of strategic selection of modeling approaches to build better-performing neuroimaging pain biomarkers. However, the generalizability of these findings to clinical pain requires further investigation.
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.