Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40102462›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Machine learning predicts spinal cord stimulation surgery outcomes and reveals novel neural markers for chronic pain.

Jay Gopal, Jonathan Bao, Tessa Harland, Julie G Pilitsis, Steven Paniccioli, Rachael Grey, Michael Briotte, Kevin McCarthy, Ilknur Telkes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. 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

9 authors.

Jay GopalThe Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Jonathan BaoAlbany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA.
Tessa HarlandDepartment of Neurosurgery, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA.
Julie G PilitsisDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine - Tucson, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Steven PaniccioliNuvasive Clinical Services, San Diego, CA, USA.
Rachael GreyNuvasive Clinical Services, San Diego, CA, USA.
Michael BriotteNuvasive Clinical Services, San Diego, CA, USA.
Kevin McCarthyNuvasive Clinical Services, San Diego, CA, USA.
Ilknur TelkesDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine - Tucson, Tucson, AZ, USA. itelkes@arizona.edu.

Funding

Center for Innovative NeuroTech Advancement - CINTA Transition FundingU54EB033650 · NIBIB · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI STEVEN C. SCHACHTER · 2022 to 2026
$47.1M
MR-Guided Precision Conformal Ablation Therapy for Brain TumorsR01CA166379 · NCI · WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE · PI FISCHER, GREGORY S, PILITSIS, JULIE GEORGIA · 2013 to 2022
$6.5M
Assessment of EEG Responses to Spinal Cord Stimulation Waveforms in Chronic Pain PatientsR00NS119672 · NINDS · FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY · PI TELKES ERGUN, ILKNUR · 2022 to 2023
$273k
Florida Atlantic University COECS/I-SENSENCI NIH HHS R01 CA166379NIBIB NIH HHS U54 EB033650NIH HHS 2R01CA166379NIH HHS R00NS119672NIH-NeuroBlueprint MedTech 5U54EB033650NINDS NIH HHS R00 NS119672Office for Research, Innovation and Impact, University of Arizona TRIF
6 · The paper itself

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

Chronic PainMachine LearningSpinal Cord StimulationAdultAgedBiomarkersElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementTreatment OutcomeBiomarkersChronic painEEGMachine learningRespondersSpinal cord stimulation

Identifiers

PMID40102462
PMCPMC11920397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.