ArticleScientific reports2025
Classification accuracy of pain intensity induced by leg blood flow restriction during walking using machine learning based on electroencephalography.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- EEG Spectral Analysis in Chronic Pain During Rest and Cognitive Reasoning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pain assessment in clinical practice largely relies on patient-reported subjectivity. Although previous studies using fMRI and EEG have attempted objective pain evaluation, their focus has been limited to resting conditions. This study aimed to classify pain levels during movement using a wearable device with three forehead electrodes and advanced machine learning. Twenty-five healthy participants performed walking tasks under tourniquet-induced pain. It was confirmed that pain increased as walking time extended. Walking time was used as an index of pain stimulus intensity, and EEG data were collected to classify pain levels. Three machine learning algorithms-Random Forest, eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and Light Gradient Boosting Machine-were employed. XGBoost achieved the highest classification performance among them. Classification accuracy for 2-, 3-, and 5-class classifications was evaluated and compared with and without BrainRate (BR), a metric indicating changes in the frequency spectrum and reflecting relative shifts across all frequency bands. Without BR, accuracies were 0.82 for 2-class, 0.60 for 3-class, and 0.40 for 5-class classification. Including BR improved accuracies to 0.96, 0.75, and 0.47, respectively. These findings highlight the significant role of BR in improving pain classification accuracy and the potential of this system for objective pain assessment even during movement.
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.