Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 275

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Differences in brain responses to visceral pain between patients with irritable bowel syndrome and ulcerative colitis

Mayer, Emeran A., Berman, Steven, Suyenobu, Brandall, Labus, Jennifer, Mandelkern, Mark A., Naliboff, Bruce D., Chang, Lin·2005·Pain
DOI 10.1016/j.pain.2005.03.023
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Patients with mild chronic inflammation of the rectum or ileum have reduced perceptual responses to rectosigmoid distension compared to patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The current study sought to identify differences in regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) during rectal distension, which might correspond to these perceptual differences. In 8 male ulcerative colitis (UC) patients with quiescent disease, 7 male IBS patients and 7 healthy male controls, rCBF was assessed using 15O-water positron emission tomography at baseline and during actual and anticipated but undelivered rectal distensions. No group differences were seen in anterior insula and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC), two regions consistently activated by painful intestinal stimuli. However, IBS patients showed greater activation of the amygdala, rostroventral ACC, and dorsomedial frontal cortical regions. In contrast, no significant differences were observed between UC and controls. When these two non-IBS groups were combined, functional connectivity analyses showed that right lateral frontal cortex (RLFC) activation positively correlated with activation of the dorsal pons/periaqueductal gray, a key region involved in endogenous pain inhibition. According to the connectivity analysis, this effect was mediated by inhibition of medial frontal cortex by the RLFC. Chronic colonic inflammation is not necessarily associated with increased visceral afferent input to the brain during rectal distension. In the sample studied, the primary difference between functional and quiescent inflammatory disease of the colon was in terms of greater activation of limbic/paralimbic circuits in IBS, and inhibition of these circuits in UC and controls by the RLFC.

Overview

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 · 10.1016/j.pain.2005.03.023

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 275

Metadata

Authors
Mayer, E. A., Berman, S., Suyenobu, B., Labus, J., Mandelkern, M. A., Naliboff, B. D., & Chang, L.
Venue
Pain
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2005-06
Volume
115
Issue
3
Pages
398-409
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.pain.2005.03.023
OpenAlex
W1965539337
Cited by
275
References
18
FWCI
15.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.