Medical Reports & Case Studies

The Role of Neuroimaging in the Development of Pain Markers in the Future

James Williams^{* *}Correspondence: James Williams, Editorial Office, Medical Reports and Case Studies, UK, Email:

Author info »

Introduction

Humans have always been connected in some way to pain, whether it be structural or visceral. It is well known how crucial markers are for early diagnosis intervention and treatment response. A method has been developed to quantify pain markers after they were examined for quantification. Research is frequently conducted with the supposition that pain markers may be defined and measured. There has always been a need to quantify pain using appropriate markers because the current methods for measuring pain clinically rely on patient self-report, which may not be valid. Certain imaging techniques could be used to define these indicators and ultimately quantify them.

CNS imaging techniques for measuring pain

More often than ever, fMRI (Functional magnetic resonance imaging) is employed to comprehend the quantitative biomarker mechanism for medication development and also to offer in-depth understanding of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Although it is a costly imaging modality, fMRI is an excellent strategy for the proof of concept. One of the most often utilised fMRI techniques, BOLD (Blood Oxygen Level Dependent Signal), is used to detect activity in various brain regions in response to a stimulus [1]. Another method to functionally define the changes in the brain associated with pain perception is PET. It can also be used to find quantitative biomarkers. Although fMRI and PET are objective, non-invasive radiological and molecular imaging tools, we still lack sensitive and precise pain markers.

Justification for pain neuroimaging

By giving an objective evaluation of the degree of pain, neuroimaging may be able to replace the patient's changeable subjective self-report of pain. This will be crucial for managing the discomfort in addition to being crucial from a diagnostic standpoint. These pain markers will offer a quantitative evaluation and qualitatively alter how these individuals are managed. The researchers are looking for pain signals that have good diagnostic values, can be quantified (test-retest reliability), and are confirmed by additional testing. Thorough investigation is needed for this. It would be easier to understand the relevance of neuroimaging in pain if there was a method for decoding the neuroimages and searching for an acute or chronic pain [2,3].

Neuropathic pain and inflammation

Inflammatory and neuropathic pain are not the same, and Gineste et al work's demonstrating the function of the medication nimesulide as an anti-nociceptive agent helped to distinguish between the two forms of pain. Cerebrospinal fluid cytostatic C concentrations may suggest varicella zoster virus post herpetic neuralgia [4]. There is no evidence of a relationship between the two based on the length and severity of the pain or their link with Cystatin C. Pain markers for neuropathic or inflammatory pain will differ from those for chest pain, obstetric pain, or significance of pain with Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). In order to develop the neuroimaging biomarker for IBS, Labus et al. This creates a huge opportunity for a challenging research paradigm to examine various pain markers [5].

Conclusion

It takes a lot of research to find pain markers that are reliable, repeatable, and quantitative. Some people argue that pain markers are unreliable, while others say that our prior experiences, how we respond to pain, and how our brains store this input can all alter how we perceive pain. Any pain we experience should be measurable on imaging, and if this is done, we will be able to alter our patients' diagnostic and prognosis values. Only time and further study will be able to determine whether fMRI, PET, or some other newly found imaging technology will become the modern pain scanner and whether pain will change from a symptom to a self-contained disease diagnosed by these scanners.

References

1. Woo, Choong-Wan, & Wager, Tor D. "Neuroimaging-based biomarker discovery and validation." Pain 156.8 (2015): 1379.

   [Google scholar] [Cross ref]

2. Martucci, Katherine T., et al. "Neuroimaging chronic pain: what have we learned and where are we going?" Future neurol. 9.6 (2014): 615-626.

   [Google scholar] [Cross ref]

3. Drevets, Wayne C. "Neuroimaging studies of mood disorders." Biol psychiatry 48.8 (2000): 813-829.

   [Google scholar] [Cross ref]

4. Kirschen, Matthew P., et al. "Subjects' expectations in neuroimaging research." J Magn Reson Imaging: Off J Int Soc Magn  Reson Med. 23.2 (2006): 205-209.

   [Google scholar] [Cross ref]

5. Roskies, Adina L. "Neuroimaging and inferential distance." Neuroethics 1 (2008): 19-30.

   [Google scholar] [Cross ref]