RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Exploring Electroencephalography for Chronic Pain Biomarkers: A Large-Scale Benchmark of Data- and Hypothesis-Driven Models
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2026.03.06.26347785
DO 10.64898/2026.03.06.26347785
A1 Bott, Felix S.
A1 Turgut, Özgün
A1 Zebhauser, Paul Theo
A1 Adhia, Divya B.
A1 Ashar, Yoni K.
A1 Day, Melissa A.
A1 Granovsky, Yelena
A1 Jensen, Mark P.
A1 Wager, Tor D.
A1 Yarnitsky, David
A1 Rueckert, Daniel
A1 Ploner, Markus
YR 2026
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2026/03/06/2026.03.06.26347785.abstract
AB Resting-state electroencephalography (EEG) has been proposed as a scalable source of biomarkers for chronic pain, but its clinical potential remains uncertain. To systematically evaluate this potential, we benchmarked nine modeling strategies, spanning conventional machine learning with handcrafted features to state-of-the-art deep learning. Across 72 configurations of signal representations and model architectures, we trained models to predict self-reported pain intensity, using chronological age decoding as a positive control. Pain prediction performance was limited (R=0.15), with the best results achieved by conventional connectivity-based models. In contrast, age was robustly decoded from the same dataset (R=0.53), confirming technical efficacy. These findings indicate that resting-state EEG contains limited information about inter-individual differences in chronic pain intensity, making it unlikely to yield clinically actionable biomarkers in cross-sectional settings. Instead, its potential may lie in intra-individual modeling of pain dynamics, which could advance individualized mechanistic insights and more personalized treatment of chronic pain.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB1158, PL321/14-1, PL321/16-1) and the Technical University of Munich (TUM Innovation Network Neurotech).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study involved secondary analysis of de-identified, anonymised data obtained from controlled-access repositories. No new data were collected, and there was no interaction with or intervention involving human participants. As such, this analysis does not constitute human subjects research and did not require additional ethical approval. All original studies from which data were derived had received appropriate ethical approval: Set_Munich1: IRB of Technical University of Munich gave ethical approval for this work (IRB-number: 5493/12) Set_Munich2: IRB of Technical University of Munich gave ethical approval for this work (IRB number: 6/22 S-KH) Set_: IRB of Technical University of Munich gave ethical approval for this work (IRB-number: 5493/12) Set_Brisbane: IRB of University of Queensland gave ethical approval for this work (IRB number: 6/22 S-KH) Set_Otago1: IRB of University of Otago gave ethical approval for this work (IRB number: 20/CEN/60) Set_Otago2: IRB of University of Otago gave ethical approval for this work (IRB numbers: 20/NTB/67, 2023 EXP 17953) Set_Boulder: IRB of Dartmouth College gave ethical approval for this work (IRB-number: 5493/12) Set_Haifa: IRB of Technion Israel Institute of Technology gave ethical approval for this work (IRB number: 6/22 S-KH) Set_Seattle: IRB of University of Washington gave ethical approval for this work (IRB-number: 5493/12) I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesData produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors