ArticleAnesthesiology and pain medicine2026
Facial Expression-based Pain Detection: Development and Validation in the Post-anesthesia Care Unit.
Article in Anesthesiology and pain medicine, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Objective pain assessment in non-communicative patients remains challenging. Facial expressions are valid indicators of pain; however, manual coding is not practical. Objectives: This study aimed to develop and validate a real-time facial pain assessment system (FPAS) for detecting pain using deep learning-based facial expression analysis. Methods: This cross-sectional study enrolled 50 postoperative patients in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) of a teaching hospital. The system performed parallel processing of facial action units using FaceMesh and emotion recognition using DeepFace, with individual baseline calibration and temporal stabilization. At 1, 5, 10, 15, and 30 minutes after PACU admission, the system generated a 0 - 10 Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score and a four-level categorical classification, which were simultaneously compared with patients' self-reported VAS ratings. Pearson correlation, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), linear mixed-effects models, and classification metrics were used. Results: Fifty patients (60% female; mean age, 44.6 years) were enrolled. The Pearson correlation between the FPAS and patient self-reported VAS scores was 0.74 (P < 0.001). The ICC was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.64 - 0.77). Pain scores decreased significantly over time with both methods (P < 0.001), and the time × method interaction was not significant (P = 0.11). Categorical emotion classification showed 56% overall accuracy (Cohen's kappa = 0.43, P < 0.001), with the greatest agreement for the neutral class (sensitivity 72%, specificity 85%). For the four-level pain intensity classification, overall accuracy was 78.5%, with sensitivity ranging from 44% (severe pain) to 85% (no pain). Conclusions: The automated FPAS demonstrated a strong correlation and acceptable agreement with patient self-reported VAS scores for postoperative pain monitoring in the PACU, supporting its potential as an adjunctive assessment tool. However, broader validation in larger, more diverse cohorts is needed before its clinical implementation.
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.