ArticleEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2026
Reliable Biomarkers of Descending Pain Inhibition: A Laser-Evoked Potential and Behavioural Study.
Article in European journal of pain (London, England), 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.
- Reliable Biomarkers of Descending Pain Inhibition: A Laser-Evoked Potential and Behavioural Study.European journal of pain (London, England) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConditioned pain modulation (CPM) assesses descending pain inhibition, but behavioural approaches are limited by subjectivity and variable reproducibility. We tested a CPM protocol combining nociceptive-selective laser-evoked potentials (LEPs) with a repeated-trial design to determine whether neurophysiological markers complement behavioural measures and improve reliability.
methodsTwenty-seven healthy adults (mean age 24.6 years; 14 female) completed two sessions ≥ 1 week apart. Nociceptive-selective laser stimuli were applied to the left hand before and after a cold pressor task, and EEG was recorded to extract LEP-N2P2 components. Temporal LEP-N1 was measured as a secondary outcome. Behavioural CPM (B_CPM) was indexed by pain ratings; neurophysiological CPM (N_CPM) was defined by reductions in LEP-N2P2 amplitude.
resultsConsistent behavioural responders were observed in 92.6% of participants, and N_CPM responder rates exceeded 74% across electrodes. B_CPM and N_CPM magnitudes correlated at C3, C4, and Cz (ρ = 0.54-0.56; FDR-adjusted p < 0.05). Test-retest reliability was good to excellent for B_CPM (ICC
conclusionThe repeated-trial design enabled assessment of within-subject consistency via the B_CPM induction rate. Combining behavioural and neurophysiological measures in this dual-domain framework may improve interpretability and advance standardisation of CPM methodology. LEP-based N_CPM markers showed reproducibility across sessions and may contribute to the development of brain-based biomarkers for patient stratification and treatment selection in chronic pain. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This study establishes a reproducible dual-domain framework for assessing descending pain inhibition by integrating behavioural conditioned pain modulation with nociceptive-specific laser-evoked potentials. Using a repeated-trial design, both behavioural and cortical measures showed high responder rates, strong correlations, and good test-retest reliability. The findings advance standardisation of CPM methodology and demonstrate that LEP-based neurophysiological markers can objectively index inhibitory function, supporting the development of reliable, brain-based biomarkers to guide mechanism-driven pain assessment and personalised neuromodulation therapies.
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.