ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Physiological Sensor Modality Sensitivity Test for Pain Intensity Classification in Quantitative Sensory Testing.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bioengineering Innovations for Personalized Care in Low Back Pain: From Sensors to Smart Therapeutics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Validation of the integral of pain relief as a measure of chronic pain treatment efficacy.Pain reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chronic pain is prevalent and disproportionately impacts adults with a lower quality of life. Although subjective self-reporting is the "gold standard" for pain assessment, tools are needed to objectively monitor and account for inter-individual differences. This study introduced a novel framework to objectively classify pain intensity levels using physiological signals during Quantitative Sensory Testing sessions. Twenty-four participants participated in the study wearing physiological sensors (blood volume pulse (BVP), galvanic skin response (GSR), electromyography (EMG), respiration rate (RR), skin temperature (ST), and pupillometry). This study employed two analysis plans. Plan 1 utilized a grid search methodology with a 10-fold cross-validation framework to optimize time windows (1-5 s) and machine learning hyperparameters for pain classification tasks. The optimal time windows were identified as 3 s for the pressure session, 2 s for the pinprick session, and 1 s for the cuff session. Analysis Plan 2 implemented a leave-one-out design to evaluate the individual contribution of each sensor modality. By systematically excluding one sensor's features at a time, the performance of these sensor sets was compared to the full model using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. BVP emerged as a critical sensor, significantly influencing performance in both pinprick and cuff sessions. Conversely, GSR, RR, and pupillometry demonstrated stimulus-specific sensitivity, significantly contributing to the cuff session but with limited influence in other sessions. EMG and ST showed minimal impact across all sessions, suggesting they are non-critical and suitable for reducing sensor redundancy. These findings advance the design of sensor configurations for personalized pain management. Future research will focus on refining sensor integration and addressing stimulus-specific physiological responses.
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.