Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39383872›Full record

ReviewCell reports. Medicine2024

Advances and challenges in neuroimaging-based pain biomarkers.

Li-Bo Zhang, Yu-Xin Chen, Zhen-Jiang Li, Xin-Yi Geng, Xiang-Yue Zhao, Feng-Rui Zhang, Yan-Zhi Bi, Xue-Jing Lu, Li Hu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cell reports. Medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors.

Li-Bo ZhangCAS Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China; Neuroscience and Behaviour Laboratory, Italian Institute of Technology, Rome 00161, Italy.
Yu-Xin ChenCAS Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China.
Zhen-Jiang LiCAS Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China.
Xin-Yi GengCAS Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China.
Xiang-Yue ZhaoCAS Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China.
Feng-Rui ZhangCAS Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; Department of Neuroscience, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.
Yan-Zhi BiCAS Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China.
Xue-Jing LuCAS Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China. Electronic address: luxj@psych.ac.cn.
Li HuCAS Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China. Electronic address: huli@psych.ac.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying neural biomarkers of pain has long been a central theme in pain neuroscience. Here, we review the state-of-the-art candidates for neural biomarkers of acute and chronic pain. We classify these potential neural biomarkers into five categories based on the nature of their target variables, including neural biomarkers of (1) within-individual perception, (2) between-individual sensitivity, and (3) discriminability for acute pain, as well as (4) assessment and (5) prospective neural biomarkers for chronic pain. For each category, we provide a synthesized review of candidate biomarkers developed using neuroimaging techniques including functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI), and electroencephalography (EEG). We also discuss the conceptual and practical challenges in developing neural biomarkers of pain. Addressing these challenges, optimal biomarkers of pain can be developed to deepen our understanding of how the brain represents pain and ultimately help alleviate patients' suffering and improve their well-being.

Indexed as

BiomarkersBrainNeuroimagingPainChronic PainElectroencephalographyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingBiomarkersbiomarkerEEGelectroencephalographymachine learningmagnetic resonance imagingMRIpain

Identifiers

PMID39383872
PMCPMC11513815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.