ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning methods on BioVid heat pain database for pain intensity estimation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 is a critical aspect of medical practice, directly influencing patient treatment and quality of life. Traditional pain evaluation methods, such as the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), are subjective and often unreliable, especially for non-verbal, unconscious, or cognitively impaired patients. This study introduces an objective pain measurement model using advanced machine learning techniques, specifically, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), and Vision Transformers (ViTs), to analyze facial expressions. We compared the performance of CNNs, VGG16, Convolutional Vision Transformer (CvT), and MobileViT, in classifying pain intensity based on facial images captured during peak pain and no-pain moments. The models were trained and evaluated on the BioVid Heat Pain Database, which comprises facial recordings of 87 participants experiencing varying pain intensities. The comparative analysis of the CNN, VGG16, CvT, and MobileViT50 models reveal distinct differences in their performance metrics. Among the four models, the CNN model achieved the highest average accuracy at 0.71, demonstrating better performance in correctly classifying both pain and no pain images. The CvT model followed closely with an average accuracy of 0.69, indicating that it also performed well, although slightly less effectively than CNN. MobileViT50, with an accuracy of 0.60, and VGG16, with 0.56, performed significantly lower, suggesting that these models struggled more with accurately classifying the data. These results highlight the potential of automated pain assessment technologies to provide consistent and objective evaluations, which can be particularly beneficial in clinical environments for non-communicative patients. Future research will explore the integration of multimodal data to further enhance the robustness of pain detection systems.
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.