Cited by 202Pain Management and Placebo EffectPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and Treatment

Activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of brain correlates of placebo analgesia in human experimental pain

Open access
Amanzio, Martina, Benedetti, Fabrizio, Porro, Carlo A., Palermo, Sara, Cauda, Franco·2013·Human Brain Mapping

Abstract

Placebo analgesia (PA) is one of the most studied placebo effects. Brain imaging studies published over the last decade, using either positron emission tomography (PET) or functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), suggest that multiple brain regions may play a pivotal role in this process. However, there continues to be much debate as to which areas consistently contribute to placebo analgesia‐related networks. In the present study, we used activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta‐analysis, a state‐of‐the‐art approach, to search for the cortical areas involved in PA in human experimental pain models. Nine fMRI studies and two PET studies investigating cerebral hemodynamic changes were included in the analysis. During expectation of analgesia, activated foci were found in the left anterior cingulate, right precentral, and lateral prefrontal cortex and in the left periaqueductal gray (PAG). During noxious stimulation, placebo‐related activations were detected in the anterior cingulate and medial and lateral prefrontal cortices, in the left inferior parietal lobule and postcentral gyrus, anterior insula, thalamus, hypothalamus, PAG, and pons; deactivations were found in the left mid‐ and posterior cingulate cortex, superior temporal and precentral gyri, in the left anterior and right posterior insula, in the claustrum and putamen, and in the right thalamus and caudate body. Our results suggest on one hand that the modulatory cortical networks involved in PA largely overlap those involved in the regulation of emotional processes, on the other that brain nociceptive networks are downregulated in parallel with behavioral analgesia. Hum Brain Mapp, 2013. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hbm.21471

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The fail-safe N analysis was complemented by a jackknife analysis to cross-validate that the observed results were not driven by any single study in the dataset.

    “The fail-safe N analysis was complemented by a jackknife analysis to cross-validate that the observed results were not driven by any single study in the dataset (Amanzio et al., 2013; Shao & Tu, 1995).”

    From Bridging phenomenology and neural mechanisms of inner speech: ALE meta-analysis on egocentricity and spontaneity in a dual-mechanistic framework (2023) · cites this paper as Amanzio et al., 2013

    The Methods section ('Jackknife Analysis'; page unavailable) says the authors used a jackknife analysis to test whether activations were driven by a small subset of studies. The Results section ('Reliability of the Identified Clusters: Jackknife Analysis'; page unavailable) reports that no identified cluster was driven by a single paper. Our copy does not say that this analysis complemented a fail-safe N analysis. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • An inert treatment could function through three interrelated processes to produce placebo and nocebo effects.

    “Theoretically, an inert treatment could function through three interrelated processes to produce placebo and nocebo effects (Amanzio et al., 2013; Kong et al., 2007).”

    From Distinct neural representations of placebo and nocebo effects (2015) · cites this paper as Amanzio et al., 2013

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Amanzio, M., Benedetti, F., Porro, C. A., Palermo, S., & Cauda, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Turin (IT)
  • University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (IT)
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-11-29
Volume
34
Issue
3
Pages
738-752
ISSN
  • 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0193
OpenAlex
W1985701424
Cited by
202
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • IRIS UNIMORE (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Volkswagen Foundation
  • Regione Piemonte
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
placebo analgesia, placebo effect, experimental pain, brain correlates, anterior cingulate cortex, prefrontal cortex, periaqueductal gray, brain deactivation, emotion regulation, thalamus, insula
MeSH terms
Analgesia, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Pain, Physical Stimulation, Reproducibility of Results, Placebo Effect, Likelihood Functions, Databases, Factual, Positron-Emission Tomography, Pain Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review