OpenPain: Brain network change Mano
OpenPain Project: Classification and characterisation of brain network changes in chronic back pain
Resting-state fMRI and T1-weighted MRI of 41 adults with chronic low back pain and 56 matched controls from two sites, Cambridge (UK) and Osaka (Japan), shared through the OpenPain Project for brain network and classification studies.
Overview
This OpenPain Project study holds brain MRI from adults with chronic low back pain and from matched pain-free controls, collected at two sites to study how large-scale brain networks change in chronic pain. Mano and colleagues used the data as the discovery cohort for support vector machine and deep learning classifiers of patients versus controls, and for graph-theory analyses of hub disruption and modular reorganisation. The paper's data availability statement points to the OpenPain Project for the raw data, which it distributes after online registration.
Composition
The cohort has 97 people: 41 patients and 56 controls. The Cambridge (UK) site contributed 17 patients and 17 controls, the Osaka (Japan) site 24 patients and 39 controls. Ages per group span 20 to 68 years. Patients had back pain for more than six months, no other chronic pain condition and no major neurological or psychiatric illness. Controls were matched approximately for age, sex and IQ. Each participant has a T1-weighted structural scan and one resting-state fMRI run. Pain intensity (visual analogue scale, short-form McGill questionnaire), depression scores (Beck, Hamilton) and a reading-based IQ estimate were collected.
Acquisition
Both sites used a Siemens 3T Magnetom Trio with a 12-channel head coil, at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge and at CiNet in Osaka. Resting-state BOLD was a gradient echo EPI with a 64 x 64 matrix: TR 2000 ms and 300 volumes in Cambridge, TR 2500 ms and 234 volumes in Osaka. The structural scan was a 1 mm MPRAGE, with 176 sagittal slices in Cambridge and 208 in Osaka. Cambridge scanned from June 2013 to April 2014, Osaka from April 2014 to March 2015.
Known limitations
The sample is small and the two sites differ in fMRI timing and slice coverage. One Cambridge patient was excluded from the published analyses for excessive signal changes after motion scrubbing. The paper reports no sex breakdown. Preprocessed connectivity matrices from the same study are held separately by ATR in Japan under their own terms. The OpenPain download portal is behind registration, so the file contents on the portal were not checked for this entry.
Cohort
Aggregate numbers from the sources below. Bars are relative to the 97 subjects.
Contrast combinations
How many subjects have exactly each set of contrasts.
| T1w | bold | Subjects with exactly this set |
|---|---|---|
97 |
Contrast / sequence
subjects, values can overlap
- T1-weighted 97 100%
- BOLD fMRI 97 100%
Condition
subjects, values can overlap
- Healthy control 56 58%
- Low back pain 41 42%
Scanner vendor
subjects
- Siemens Healthineers 97 100%
Field strength
subjects
- 3 T 97 100%
Country
subjects
- Japan 63 65%
- United Kingdom 34 35%
License and access
Our reading of the license, not legal advice. Before you use the data, read the original license and confirm that your use is allowed. We take no responsibility for how you use a dataset. Full disclaimer
Create an account and accept terms online
OpenPain Data Use Agreement
Access after registering on the OpenPain site and accepting the agreement online. Use is limited to scientific investigation, teaching or planning clinical research. Data may not be disclosed beyond those uses, everyone who uses or receives them must follow the agreement, re-identification is forbidden and publications must acknowledge the OpenPain Project and its funders.
What you can do
- Conditional
- Not stated
- Not stated
- Not stated
- Conditional
What you can share
- Conditional
- Not stated
- Share trained models Not stated
What you must do
- Yes
- Share alike No
- Yes
- Conditional
- Manuscript review No
- Release code No
- No
- Delete after use No
Limits
- Yes
- No
Citation
Mano H, Kotecha G, Leibnitz K, Matsubara T, Sprenger C, Nakae A, Shenker N, Shibata M, Voon V, Yoshida W, Lee M, Yanagida T, Kawato M, Rosa MJ, Seymour B. Classification and characterisation of brain network changes in chronic back pain: A multicenter study. Wellcome Open Research 3:19 (2018).
All numbers
Every number on this page, as stored in stats.csv, with its source.
| Measure | Breakdown | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects | total 41 patients and 56 controls as stated in the abstract and Participants section | 97 | mano2018 Methods, Participants |
| Subjects | condition=low_back_pain Chronic musculoskeletal low back pain for over 6 months | 41 | mano2018 Methods, Participants |
| Subjects | condition=healthy Age- sex- and IQ-matched adults without back pain | 56 | mano2018 Methods, Participants |
| Subjects | country=GB Cambridge, June 2013 to April 2014 | 34 | mano2018 Methods, Participants |
| Subjects | country=JP Osaka, April 2014 to March 2015 | 63 | mano2018 Methods, Participants |
| Subjects | country=GB;condition=low_back_pain | 17 | mano2018 Table 1 |
| Subjects | country=GB;condition=healthy | 17 | mano2018 Table 1 |
| Subjects | country=JP;condition=low_back_pain | 24 | mano2018 Table 1 |
| Subjects | country=JP;condition=healthy | 39 | mano2018 Table 1 |
| Subjects | contrast=T1w T1w and resting-state fMRI for each participant | 97 | mano2018 Methods, Resting-state fMRI data preprocessing |
| Subjects | contrast=bold T1w and resting-state fMRI for each participant | 97 | mano2018 Methods, Resting-state fMRI data preprocessing |
| Subjects | contrast_set=bold+T1w T1w and resting-state fMRI for each participant | 97 | mano2018 Methods, Resting-state fMRI data preprocessing |
| Subjects | field_strength=3 | 97 | mano2018 Methods, MRI data acquisition |
| Subjects | vendor=siemens Siemens 3T Magnetom Trio with TIM | 97 | mano2018 Methods, MRI data acquisition |
| Minimum age | total Lowest of the four per-group age ranges | 20 | mano2018 Table 1 |
| Maximum age | total Highest of the four per-group age ranges | 68 | mano2018 Table 1 |
Sources
The keys used in the table above.
- mano2018 Mano et al. 2018, Wellcome Open Research 3:19 (version 2) paper