Literature DB >> 35902535

Neuroimaging Assessment of Pain.

Bo Gou1, Xue-Qiang Wang2, Jing Luo3,4, Hui-Qi Zhu4,5.   

Abstract

Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience. Understanding the neural mechanisms of acute and chronic pain and the brain changes affecting pain factors is important for finding pain treatment methods. The emergence and progress of non-invasive neuroimaging technology can help us better understand pain at the neural level. Recent developments in identifying brain-based biomarkers of pain through advances in advanced imaging can provide some foundations for predicting and detecting pain. For example, a neurologic pain signature (involving brain regions that receive nociceptive afferents) and a stimulus intensity-independent pain signature (involving brain regions that do not show increased activity in proportion to noxious stimulus intensity) were developed based on multivariate modeling to identify processes related to the pain experience. However, an accurate and comprehensive review of common neuroimaging techniques for evaluating pain is lacking. This paper reviews the mechanism, clinical application, reliability, strengths, and limitations of common neuroimaging techniques for assessing pain to promote our further understanding of pain.
© 2022. The American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Mechanism; Neuroimaging; Pain; Reliability; Review

Year:  2022        PMID: 35902535     DOI: 10.1007/s13311-022-01274-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurotherapeutics        ISSN: 1878-7479            Impact factor:   6.088


  147 in total

Review 1.  The cortical representation of pain.

Authors:  R D Treede; D R Kenshalo; R H Gracely; A K Jones
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 6.961

2.  Reward circuitry activation by noxious thermal stimuli.

Authors:  L Becerra; H C Breiter; R Wise; R G Gonzalez; D Borsook
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2001-12-06       Impact factor: 17.173

3.  Parsing pain perception between nociceptive representation and magnitude estimation.

Authors:  M N Baliki; P Y Geha; A V Apkarian
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-12-10       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 4.  An introduction to pain pathways and pain "targets".

Authors:  Vaskar Das
Journal:  Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 3.622

5.  Predicting value of pain and analgesia: nucleus accumbens response to noxious stimuli changes in the presence of chronic pain.

Authors:  Marwan N Baliki; Paul Y Geha; Howard L Fields; A Vania Apkarian
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2010-04-15       Impact factor: 17.173

6.  Racial bias in pain assessment and treatment recommendations, and false beliefs about biological differences between blacks and whites.

Authors:  Kelly M Hoffman; Sophie Trawalter; Jordan R Axt; M Norman Oliver
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-04-04       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 7.  Evaluation of Chronic Pain Using Magnetic Resonance (MR) Neuroimaging Approaches: What the Clinician Needs to Know.

Authors:  Dinesh A Kumbhare; Alyaa H Elzibak; Michael D Noseworthy
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.442

8.  Pain: a distributed brain information network?

Authors:  Hiroaki Mano; Ben Seymour
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2015-01-06       Impact factor: 8.029

Review 9.  The revised International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain: concepts, challenges, and compromises.

Authors:  Srinivasa N Raja; Daniel B Carr; Milton Cohen; Nanna B Finnerup; Herta Flor; Stephen Gibson; Francis J Keefe; Jeffrey S Mogil; Matthias Ringkamp; Kathleen A Sluka; Xue-Jun Song; Bonnie Stevens; Mark D Sullivan; Perri R Tutelman; Takahiro Ushida; Kyle Vader
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 7.926

Review 10.  Brain imaging of pain: state of the art.

Authors:  Debbie L Morton; Javin S Sandhu; Anthony Kp Jones
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 3.133

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.