ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning predicts spinal cord stimulation surgery outcomes and reveals novel neural markers for chronic pain.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence for prediction of clinical response and therapeutic value in interventional pain management: a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
- State of the Art in Neuromodulation or Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- EEG-based clustering shows distinct separation of chronic pain patients before spinal cord stimulation surgery.NeuroImage · 2026Article
- From Association to Prediction: Translational Barriers in Pain Biomarker Research.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- From Prediction to Monitoring: Toward a Translational Framework of Biomarkers in Spinal Cord Stimulation.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Leveraging artificial intelligence to optimize neuromodulation in the treatment of patients with chronic pain.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Beyond device parameters: psychological predictors of spinal cord stimulation success and their neurobiological mechanisms-a narrative review.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Spinal cord stimulation protocols for modern pain management: from two-stage models to direct-to-implant strategies.Pain management · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-accepted therapy for refractory chronic pain. However, predicting responders remain a challenge due to a lack of objective pain biomarkers. The present study applies machine learning to predict which patients will respond to SCS based on intraoperative electroencephalogram (EEG) data and recognized outcome measures. The study included 20 chronic pain patients who were undergoing SCS surgery. During intraoperative monitoring, EEG signals were recorded under SCS OFF (baseline) and ON conditions, including tonic and high density (HD) stimulation. Once spectral EEG features were extracted during offline analysis, principal component analysis (PCA) and a recursive feature elimination approach were used for feature selection. A subset of EEG features, clinical characteristics of the patients and preoperative patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were used to build a predictive model. Responders and nonresponders were grouped based on 50% reduction in 3-month postoperative Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores. The two groups had no statistically significant differences with respect to demographics (including age, diagnosis, and pain location) or PROMs, except for the postoperative NRS (worst pain: p = 0.028; average pain: p < 0.001) and Oswestry Disability Index scores (ODI, p = 0.030). Alpha-theta peak power ratio differed significantly between CP3-CP4 and T3-T4 (p = 0.019), with the lowest activity in CP3-CP4 during tonic stimulation. The decision tree model performed best, achieving 88.2% accuracy, an F1 score of 0.857, and an area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) of 0.879. Our findings suggest that combination of subjective self-reports, intraoperatively obtained EEGs, and well-designed machine learning algorithms might be potentially used to distinguish responders and nonresponders. Machine and deep learning hold enormous potential to predict patient responses to SCS therapy resulting in refined patient selection and improved patient outcomes.
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.