ReviewFrontiers in network physiology2023
Measuring pain and nociception: Through the glasses of a computational scientist. Transdisciplinary overview of methods.
Review in Frontiers in network physiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07038434 (Refining mUltiple Artificial intelliGence strateGies for Automatic Pain Assessment Investigations), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
Refining mUltiple Artificial intelliGence strateGies for Automatic Pain Assessment Investigations: RUGGI Study
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Refining multiple artificial intelligence strategies for automatic pain assessment investigations (RUGGI Study): A study protocol.European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care · 2026Article
- Expert consensus on feasibility and application of automatic pain assessment in routine clinical use.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2025Review
- Reliability of nociceptive monitors vs. standard practice during general anesthesia: a prospective observational study.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Observational
- Article
- Physiological framework for non-invasive detection and objective nociception activity in communicative patients: a pilot case study.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a healthy state, pain plays an important role in natural biofeedback loops and helps to detect and prevent potentially harmful stimuli and situations. However, pain can become chronic and as such a pathological condition, losing its informative and adaptive function. Efficient pain treatment remains a largely unmet clinical need. One promising route to improve the characterization of pain, and with that the potential for more effective pain therapies, is the integration of different data modalities through cutting edge computational methods. Using these methods, multiscale, complex, and network models of pain signaling can be created and utilized for the benefit of patients. Such models require collaborative work of experts from different research domains such as medicine, biology, physiology, psychology as well as mathematics and data science. Efficient work of collaborative teams requires developing of a common language and common level of understanding as a prerequisite. One of ways to meet this need is to provide easy to comprehend overviews of certain topics within the pain research domain. Here, we propose such an overview on the topic of pain assessment in humans for computational researchers. Quantifications related to pain are necessary for building computational models. However, as defined by the International Association of the Study of Pain (IASP), pain is a sensory and emotional experience and thus, it cannot be measured and quantified objectively. This results in a need for clear distinctions between nociception, pain and correlates of pain. Therefore, here we review methods to assess pain as a percept and nociception as a biological basis for this percept in humans, with the goal of creating a roadmap of modelling options.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.