ArticleJournal of pain research2026
Predicting Treatment Response to Pulsed Radiofrequency in Postherpetic Neuralgia Using an Explainable Machine Learning Model.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2026. 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.
- Clarifying What the Model Predicts After Pulsed Radiofrequency for Postherpetic Neuralgia [Letter].Journal of pain research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a chronic neuropathic pain disorder with substantial heterogeneity in response to pulsed radiofrequency (PRF). This study aimed to develop and validate an explainable machine learning (ML) model for predicting PRF efficacy in PHN patients. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included 404 PHN patients treated with PRF between January 2022 and December 2024. Patients were randomly assigned to a training set (n=283) and a validation set (n=121). Treatment efficacy was assessed 6 months after discharge. LASSO and the Boruta algorithms were used for feature selection. Six ML algorithms were developed and compared. Model performance was evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration, and decision curve analysis. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were used to interpret the optimal model. Results: Of the 404 patients, 255 (63.12%) were classified as effective and 149 (36.88%) as ineffective. Six predictors were finally selected: age, duration of pain, diabetes mellitus (DM), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). Among the candidate models, the random forest (RF) model showed the best overall predictive performance, with an AUC of 0.878 (95% CI: 0.806-0.949) in the validation set. SHAP analysis indicated that older age, longer pain duration, DM, and higher TNF-α and IL-6 were associated with poor response, whereas higher BDNF was associated with better outcome. Conclusion: An explainable ML model for predicting PRF efficacy in PHN patients was developed, and the RF model showed the best predictive performance. This model may assist individualized risk stratification and support clinical decision-making, but further prospective multicenter validation is required.
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.