Towards validation of clinical measures to discriminate between nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic pain: cluster analysis of a cohort with chronic musculoskeletal pain

Paul W Hodges, Raimundo Sanchez, Shane Pritchard, Adam Turnbull, Andrew Hahne, Jon Ford
{"title":"Towards validation of clinical measures to discriminate between nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic pain: cluster analysis of a cohort with chronic musculoskeletal pain","authors":"Paul W Hodges, Raimundo Sanchez, Shane Pritchard, Adam Turnbull, Andrew Hahne, Jon Ford","doi":"10.1101/2024.08.13.24311924","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The International Association for the Study of Pain defines three pain types presumed to involve different mechanisms - nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic. Based on the hypothesis that these pain types should guide matching of patients with treatments, work has been undertaken to identify features to discriminate between them for clinical use. This study aimed to evaluate the validity of these features to discriminate between pain types. Subjective and physical features were evaluated in a cohort of 350 individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain attending a chronic pain management program. Analysis tested the hypothesis that, if the features nominated for each pain type represent 3 different groups, then (i) cluster analysis should identify 3 main clusters of patients, (ii) these clusters should align with the pain type allocated by an experienced clinician, (iii) patients within a cluster should have high expression of the candidate features proposed to assist identification of that pain type. Supervised machine learning interrogated features with the greatest and least importance for discrimination; and probabilistic analysis probed the potential for coexistence of multiple pain types. Results confirmed that data could be best explained by 3 clusters, clusters were characterized by a priori specified features, and agreed with the designation of the experienced clinical with 82% accuracy. Supervised analysis highlighted features that contributed most and least to the classification of pain type and probabilistic analysis reinforced the presence of mixed pain types. These findings support the foundation for further refinement of a clinical tool to discriminate between pain types.","PeriodicalId":501393,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Pain Medicine","volume":"116 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.13.24311924","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The International Association for the Study of Pain defines three pain types presumed to involve different mechanisms - nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic. Based on the hypothesis that these pain types should guide matching of patients with treatments, work has been undertaken to identify features to discriminate between them for clinical use. This study aimed to evaluate the validity of these features to discriminate between pain types. Subjective and physical features were evaluated in a cohort of 350 individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain attending a chronic pain management program. Analysis tested the hypothesis that, if the features nominated for each pain type represent 3 different groups, then (i) cluster analysis should identify 3 main clusters of patients, (ii) these clusters should align with the pain type allocated by an experienced clinician, (iii) patients within a cluster should have high expression of the candidate features proposed to assist identification of that pain type. Supervised machine learning interrogated features with the greatest and least importance for discrimination; and probabilistic analysis probed the potential for coexistence of multiple pain types. Results confirmed that data could be best explained by 3 clusters, clusters were characterized by a priori specified features, and agreed with the designation of the experienced clinical with 82% accuracy. Supervised analysis highlighted features that contributed most and least to the classification of pain type and probabilistic analysis reinforced the presence of mixed pain types. These findings support the foundation for further refinement of a clinical tool to discriminate between pain types.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
验证区分痛觉性疼痛、神经病理性疼痛和神经痉挛性疼痛的临床措施:对慢性肌肉骨骼疼痛队列的聚类分析
国际疼痛研究协会(International Association for the Study of Pain)定义了三种假定涉及不同机制的疼痛类型--痛觉性疼痛、神经性疼痛和神经痉挛性疼痛。基于这些疼痛类型应能指导患者进行匹配治疗的假设,人们已着手确定这些类型的特征,以便在临床上使用。本研究旨在评估这些特征在区分疼痛类型方面的有效性。研究人员对参加慢性疼痛管理项目的 350 名慢性肌肉骨骼疼痛患者的主观和身体特征进行了评估。分析检验了以下假设:如果为每种疼痛类型提名的特征代表 3 个不同的群体,那么(i)聚类分析应能识别出 3 个主要的患者群组;(ii)这些群组应与经验丰富的临床医师分配的疼痛类型一致;(iii)群组内的患者应具有较高的候选特征表达,以帮助识别该疼痛类型。有监督的机器学习分析了对识别最重要和最不重要的特征;概率分析探究了多种疼痛类型共存的可能性。结果证实,数据可以用 3 个群组进行最佳解释,群组的特征是先验指定的特征,与经验丰富的临床医生的指定一致,准确率为 82%。监督分析突出了对疼痛类型分类贡献最大和最小的特征,而概率分析则强化了混合疼痛类型的存在。这些发现为进一步完善临床工具以区分疼痛类型奠定了基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Subcallosal Cingulate structural connectivity as a biomarker for chronic low back pain Women with fibromyalgia: Insights into behavioral and brain imaging Towards validation of clinical measures to discriminate between nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic pain: cluster analysis of a cohort with chronic musculoskeletal pain Pain-related white-matter changes following mild traumatic brain injury: A longitudinal diffusion tensor imaging pilot study Mitigating the Opioid Epidemic: The Role of Cannabinoids in Chronic Pain Management - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Evidence and Mechanisms
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1