ArticlePloS one2025
Classification of chronic pain and spinal cord stimulation response using machine learning in magnetoencephalography data.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- From Prediction to Monitoring: Toward a Translational Framework of Biomarkers in Spinal Cord Stimulation.Biomedicines · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to the complexity of pain, involving physical, psychological, emotional and social aspects, we are still unable to objectively quantify or fully understand this subjective experience. An increasing number of studies have attempted to identify biomarkers of pain using brain imaging tools like magnetoencephalography (MEG). In this study, we used machine learning to investigate the potential of MEG data as a biomarker for chronic pain and used this biomarker to quantify spinal cord stimulation (SCS) treatment effect.
methodsThe study population consisted of 25 patients with SCS, for whom we recorded resting-state MEG during tonic, burst and sham stimulation, 25 patients with chronic pain and 25 pain-free controls. We derived average power spectral densities across each of the 94 automated anatomical labeling atlas based brain regions and extracted six spectral features: the alpha peak frequency, alpha power ratio, and average power across the theta, alpha, beta, and low-gamma bands. Based on these features, we used automated machine learning to find the optimal combination of machine learning methods to create classification and regression models for pain and pain intensity.
resultsThe theta power and alpha power ratio were the most promising features to classify chronic pain with an accuracy of 76%. The classification model outputs and self-reported pain scores of patients with SCS showed a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.12. A regression model based on pain scores of all participants showed Spearman correlation coefficients between 0.27 and 0.41.
conclusionThis study achieved a promising 76% accuracy in classifying patients with chronic pain and pain-free controls using the theta power or alpha power ratio. However, this model's output poorly correlated with pain scores of patients with SCS. A larger variety of input features and outcome parameters is recommended.
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.