Cited by 328Pain Management and Placebo EffectPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsPain Management and Treatment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 96 of the 96 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting Individual Differences in Placebo Analgesia: Contributions of Brain Activity during Anticipation and Pain Experience

Open access

Abstract

Recent studies have identified brain correlates of placebo analgesia, but none have assessed how accurately patterns of brain activity can predict individual differences in placebo responses. We reanalyzed data from two fMRI studies of placebo analgesia (N= 47), using patterns of fMRI activity during the anticipation and experience of pain to predict new subjects' scores on placebo analgesia and placebo-induced changes in pain processing. We used a cross-validated regression procedure, LASSO-PCR, which provided both unbiased estimates of predictive accuracy and interpretable maps of which regions are most important for prediction. Increased anticipatory activity in a frontoparietal network and decreases in a posterior insular/temporal network predicted placebo analgesia. Patterns of anticipatory activity across the cortex predicted a moderate amount of variance in the placebo response (∼12% overall, ∼40% for study 2 alone), which is substantial considering the multiple likely contributing factors. The most predictive regions were those associated with emotional appraisal, rather than cognitive control or pain processing. During pain, decreases in limbic and paralimbic regions most strongly predicted placebo analgesia. Responses within canonical pain-processing regions explained significant variance in placebo analgesia, but the pattern of effects was inconsistent with widespread decreases in nociceptive processing. Together, the findings suggest that engagement of emotional appraisal circuits drives individual variation in placebo analgesia, rather than early suppression of nociceptive processing. This approach provides a framework that will allow prediction accuracy to increase as new studies provide more precise information for future predictive models.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.3420-10.2011

Cites

96 of 96 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

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?

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

Show all 96 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bishop CM (2006) Pattern recognition and machine learning (Springer, New York).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–327 of 327

Metadata

Authors
Wager, T. D., Atlas, L. Y., Leotti, L. A., & Rilling, J. K.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Emory University (US)
Corresponding author
Wager, Tor D.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2011-01-12
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
439-452
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2158440149
Cited by
328
References
96
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 24
FWCI
14.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • Journal of Neuroscience Nursing
Funders
  • John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
  • Kohlberg Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (MH076136)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH076136, R01MH076136, R37MH076136)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (RC1DA028608, R01DA027794)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
placebo analgesia, individual differences, pain experience, emotional appraisal, frontoparietal network, posterior insula, paralimbic regions, pain processing, nociception
MeSH terms
Analgesia, Analgesics, Brain, Cerebral Cortex, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Individuality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Nerve Net, Pain, Regression Analysis, Placebo Effect, Cluster Analysis, Anticipation, Psychological

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