MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Treatment of migraine

2007· letter· en· W1971733743 on OpenAlexaff
Werner J. Becker, Richard J. Kryscio

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMigraineEmergency departmentMedicineMigraine DisordersEmergency medicineMedical emergencyPediatricsAnesthesiaPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although an objective of migraine therapy is to eliminate visits to the emergency department (ED), many patients still visit this unit to seek relief from an acute attack. These patients will encounter considerable variation in treatment1 since several treatments have Level 1 evidence for efficacy, and Grade A recommendations for clinical use. These include dopamine agonists (metoclopramide, prochlorperazine, and chlorpromazine), dihydroergotamine, subcutaneous sumatriptan, and ketorolac.2 Published guidelines based on randomized trials recommend non-narcotic medications as first-line agents to treat severe migraine but the use of opioids to treat migraine in the ED is common.3 In a recent study the majority of ED patients (59.6%) received narcotics as a first-line agent.3 A survey of three nonaffiliated US EDs found that 38% of patients with migraine received meperidine initially.1 Steroids have been used to treat difficult migraine attacks since as early as 1967.4 In a small nonrandomized study in 1986, Gallagher reported a benefit for dexamethasone 8 mg IV as adjuvant therapy for migraine in the ED.5 Several double-blind randomized controlled trials have …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207