ArticlePain research & management2026
Reassessing Global Field Synchronization as a Phase-Synchrony EEG Metric: Mathematical Review and Empirical Counterexamples With Implications for Wearable Pain Monitoring.
Article in Pain research & management, 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.
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
backgroundIntegrative pain care emphasizes longitudinal monitoring to personalize multimodal treatment and reduce medication-related risk. Wearable electroencephalography (EEG) could enable scalable, real-time neurophysiological tracking but requires connectivity features that are computationally simple and mechanistically valid. Global field synchronization (GFS) is widely used and often interpreted as a global phase-synchrony index, yet its construct validity remains unclear.
objectiveTo evaluate whether GFS validly represents EEG phase synchronization and discuss implications for wearable monitoring in integrative pain management.
methodsWe conducted construct validation using (i) synthetic Fourier-domain multichannel data designed to generate counterexamples and (ii) empiricalresting-state EEG data from healthy subjects (32 channels, eyes closed). Phase dispersion was quantified by circular standard deviation (CSD). Simulations assessed GFS-CSD correspondence under rotations (0°-180°) and scaling (1-5). Empirical EEG analyses computed GFS and CSD across 1-50 Hz and evaluated their relationships by frequency band.
resultsIn simulations, GFS was invariant to rotations that substantially changed CSD but varied strongly with scaling, whereas CSD changed minimally, indicating that GFS and phase dispersion can dissociate. In empirical resting-state EEG, an expected inverse relationship between GFS and CSD was not consistently observed across delta, theta, alpha, beta, or gamma bands. At a single frequency, examples showed that similar GFS values could correspond to markedly different phase patterns depending on the point cloud's location and distribution.
conclusionsGFS does not generally serve as a valid proxy for EEG phase synchronization, thereby limiting its mechanistic interpretation as a wearable connectivity biomarker. For integrative pain monitoring and decision support, rigorous construct validation should precede clinical translation, and alternative phase-based indices with real-world robustness are needed.
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.