Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chronic Pain Shrinks The Brain

Posted by timothy on from the as-long-as-it-doesn't-touch-my-10-percent dept.

An anonymous reader writes "LiveScience is reporting on a study showing that people with chronic lower back pain have 5 to 11 percent less gray matter than pain-free folks. Its not known for sure why, but the thinking is that neurons just get worn out as the mind deals with the pain."

7 of 60 comments (clear)

  1. one of the system used by evolution by xutopia · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If a system is inadequately evolved it would probably have to suffer through more pain to walk, jog, hunt, gather, etc.. By reducing the brain it could have a bigger impact on reproduction and survival. Perhaps we evolved a trait that helped one another evolve faster.

    1. Re:one of the system used by evolution by sailforsingapore · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well...back pain comes from our specific upright posture, where small problems in the stride can be amplified up the body, causing damage in the lower back. I highly doubt that the shrinkage (if it exists) is anything but the brains adverse reaction to high stress, or possibly indicative of some deeper neurological issue that either causes/is caused by the pain.

  2. Study Problems by sailforsingapore · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm inheriently distrustful of these studies, if simply because of the sheer number of flaws that could be present in their design. I remember, in the space of one week last year, hearing three different studies; "Eggs are good for you", "Eggs are bad for you" and finally back to "Eggs are good for you". Without huge problems in the study, they couldn't have come up with such disparate results. Take this with a grain of salt.

  3. Interestingly enough... by jwriney · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can remove the word "Pain" from the article title, and still have an accurate statement.

    "You have smoked yourself retarded."

    --riney

  4. Re:In soviet russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Go look up the Helena, Montana smoking ban study. Some doctors here found a one time anomalous fall in the number of heart attack admissions to the hospital. By about 60%. It happens to be the study period occured during the period of time when the heart attack rate is down seasonally (proven that the season has an effect on the rate of heart attacks), and the study occurred only over the immediately proceeding, during and after the public smoking ban was in effect (it was thrown out in the courts a few months after it passed).

    Now the CDC uses this study as difinitive proof that smoking bans reduce the rate of heart attack and in fact have run public service announcements based on it.

    Anybody with half a brain could see that the study is flawed just by looking at the results. The rate of heart attack could not drop by 60% just by banning public smoking--and the results almost immediately. I mean, what is it? Public smoking causes heart attacks and private smoking does not?

    No, there were obviously other circumstances involved that were not considered.

  5. Or, perhaps by benjamindees · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Taking painkillers constantly rots your brain.

    Who could've guessed...

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  6. suspect statistics by mopomi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    As a chronic back pain sufferer, this article was of interest to me. So, instead of just reading the posted link, I found the actual article.
    Most of the method that others are complaining about (only 26 people, etc.--read the article, they're doing things just fine) seems fine to me, but what really bothers me is this:


    Skull-normalized whole-brain neocortical gray matter volume (excluding the cerebellum, deep gray matter, and brainstem; SIENAX analysis) was 528 +- 44 cm^3 (mean SD; n 26) in the CBP brain and 559 +- 42 cm^3 (n 26) in controls, matched for
    age, sex, and scan type (Fig. 1 A). The 30 cm^3 difference in gray matter volume, a 5.4% decrease, was highly significant (paired t test=3.7; p less than .001). A similar measure was derived from the VBM regional analysis: whole-brain mean gray matter density per voxel (VBM modulation analysis). This measure showed a 5.9% decrease in overall gray matter density (0.251 +- 0.031 in CBP subjects; 0.267 +- 0.027 in controls;



    They're claiming that a 30 cm^3 decrease is significant when their 1 sigma error is 42-44 cm^3! 1 sigma! In my field of science, nobody believes you unless the error bars don't overlap (much) with two or three sigma. Basically, everything is essentially the same to within one sigma:
    528+44=572>569;
    569-42=527528.

    Anyway, I'm sure there's some stuff that I missed, but until a larger study is done with better error analysis, I'll take what they've done as probably correct, but with some doubt. . .