Effect sizes and test-retest reliability of the fMRI-based neurologic pain signature

• Authors: Xiachun Han, Beijing Normal University; Yoni K Ashar, Weill Cornell Medicine; Philip Kragel, Emory University; Bogdan Petre, Dartmouth College; Victoria Schelkun, Columbia University; Lauren Y Atlas, National Institutes of Health (NIH); Luke J Chang, Dartmouth College; Marieke Jepma, Universiteit van Amsterdam; Leonie Koban, INSEAD, Europe; Elizabeth AR Losin, University of Miami; Mathieu Roy, Université McGill; Choong-Wan Woo, Institute for Basic Science, Daejeon; Tor D Wager, Dartmouth College
• Journal Title: NeuroImage
• Volume: Volume 247
• Publisher: Elsevier Inc | 2022-02-15, Pages 118844-118844
• Type of Work: Article | Post-print: After Peer Review
• Publisher DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118844
• Subjects: Health Sciences, Mental Health; Health Sciences, Medicine and Surgery
• Keywords: Evoked pain; Individual differences; Measurement properties; Multivariate brain signature; Trial number; Adult; Brain Mapping; Female; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Nociception; Pain; Reproducibility of Results

Abstract

Identifying biomarkers that predict mental states with large effect sizes and high test-retest reliability is a growing priority for fMRI research. We examined a well-established multivariate brain measure that tracks pain induced by nociceptive input, the Neurologic Pain Signature (NPS). In N = 295 participants across eight studies, NPS responses showed a very large effect size in predicting within-person single-trial pain reports (d = 1.45) and medium effect size in predicting individual differences in pain reports (d = 0.49). The NPS showed excellent short-term (within-day) test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.84, with average 69.5 trials/person). Reliability scaled with the number of trials within-person, with ≥60 trials required for excellent test-retest reliability. Reliability was tested in two additional studies across 5-day (N = 29, ICC = 0.74, 30 trials/person) and 1-month (N = 40, ICC = 0.46, 5 trials/person) test-retest intervals. The combination of strong within-person correlations and only modest between-person correlations between the NPS and pain reports indicate that the two measures have different sources of between-person variance. The NPS is not a surrogate for individual differences in pain reports but can serve as a reliable measure of pain-related physiology and mechanistic target for interventions.