Developing and Validating the ID-Chronic Migraine (ID-CM) Screening Tool (P5.202)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a reliable and valid tool to screen for chronic migraine (CM) amongst individuals with severe headaches. BACKGROUND: Despite its substantial economic and quality of life burden, CM remains under-recognized, under-treated and poorly managed. No validated screening tool exists for identifying individuals in the headache population who likely have CM. DESIGN/METHODS: The item pool for ID-CM was derived from existing instruments and candidate questions proposed by a Delphi panel composed of eight international headache experts. A draft questionnaire of 20-items was developed based on psychometric modeling in available data, Delphi panel input, and cognitive debriefing interviews among ten persons with CM. The draft screening tool was administered to an online research panel of severe headache sufferers. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to determine factor structure. Multiple group IRT models (stratified on headache type: CM, EM, severe headache) explored item properties and homogeneity of item properties across headache strata. Analyses were conducted using M-plus version 7.1. RESULTS: The draft screener was administered to 1562 persons having CM (n=363), EM (n=416) and other severe headache (n=783). Model fit indicated that a 3-factor solution optimally explained the data with factors corresponding to migraine symptoms (6-items, e.g. pain intensity, nausea), headache-related disability (3-items from MIDAS) and disruption of daily activities (3 items, e.g. headache interference with planning). Multiple group multi-factor IRT models revealed homogeneity of screener items across headache types. Factor correlations were strong: disruption and disability were correlated 0.7, disruption and symptoms correlated 0.4, and disability and symptoms correlated 0.3. CONCLUSIONS: A preliminary tool has been developed to screen for chronic migraine amongst individuals with severe headache. Test-retest reliability and validation research is ongoing. In the next phase, screening diagnoses will be compared with clinical expert diagnosis using structured interviews. Study Supported by: Allergan, Inc.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".