INT289207

From wiki-pain
Jump to: navigation, search
Context Info
Confidence 0.06
First Reported 2009
Last Reported 2009
Negated 0
Speculated 0
Reported most in Body
Documents 1
Total Number 8
Disease Relevance 0
Pain Relevance 1.92

This is a graph with borders and nodes. Maybe there is an Imagemap used so the nodes may be linking to some Pages.

extracellular space (MFGE8) extracellular region (MFGE8) cell adhesion (MFGE8)
Anatomy Link Frequency
brain 1
MFGE8 (Homo sapiens)
Pain Link Frequency Relevance Heat
Transcranial magnetic stimulation 1456 99.76 Very High Very High Very High
imagery 40 5.00 Very Low Very Low Very Low
Neurobehavioral 16 5.00 Very Low Very Low Very Low
Migraine 8 5.00 Very Low Very Low Very Low
magnetoencephalography 8 5.00 Very Low Very Low Very Low
positron emission tomography 8 5.00 Very Low Very Low Very Low
Disease Link Frequency Relevance Heat
Cognitive Disorder 48 5.00 Very Low Very Low Very Low
Epilepsy 8 5.00 Very Low Very Low Very Low
Headache 8 5.00 Very Low Very Low Very Low

Sentences Mentioned In

Key: Protein Mutation Event Anatomy Negation Speculation Pain term Disease term
Continuous reiterative interactions, with a dominant MFG?
MFG Binding (interactions) of
1) Confidence 0.06 Published 2009 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2789405 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.22
To summarize, out of these two intriguing possibilities; 1) fMRI EC analysis has a temporal resolution below 100 ms, the MFG?
MFG Binding (resolution) of
2) Confidence 0.04 Published 2009 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2789405 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.21
Table 1 provides more information on the anatomical locations and spread, by listing the Talairach coördinates for the individual PPC and MFG clusters in the same subjects as shown in Figure 3.


MFG Binding (individual) of
3) Confidence 0.04 Published 2009 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2789405 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.22
Second, the anatomical differences between PPC and MFG could have been responsible for a lower statistical power for MFG.
MFG Binding (power) of
4) Confidence 0.04 Published 2009 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2789405 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.24
Targeting this seeded PPC and the connected MFG with TMS in distinct time windows resulted in time-specific behavioral effects for both brain regions.
MFG Binding (Targeting) of in brain associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation
5) Confidence 0.04 Published 2009 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2789405 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.43
The second option involves continuous reiterative dynamic loops of bidirectional interaction between PPC and MFG (e.g. dynamic re-entry: [38]).
MFG Binding (interaction) of
6) Confidence 0.04 Published 2009 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2789405 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.15
In summary, TMS can affect task performance both when applied to PPC, and to MFG, up to a time of 333 ms from stimulus onset.
MFG Binding (applied) of associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation
7) Confidence 0.04 Published 2009 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2789405 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.30
The added information from our TMS data, however, plus data found in previous research (see below), suggests that the interactions between PPC and MFG are bidirectional.
MFG Binding (interactions) of associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation
8) Confidence 0.04 Published 2009 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2789405 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.15

General Comments

This test has worked.

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox