MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987305031 · doi:10.1007/s10194-006-0329-8

Transcranial magnetic stimulation for migraine: clinical effects

2006· article· en· W1987305031 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Headache and Pain · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcMaster University
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationMedicineMigraineStimulationAnesthesiaHeart rateHeart rate variabilityNeurologyCardiologyInternal medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective was to assess the impact of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) on pain and the autonomic nervous system (ANS) in migraine. Forty-two people [mean age 41.43+/-11.69 (SD) years, 36 females] were randomised into high vs. low TMS stimulation groups and received 2 brief pulses of TMS. Thirty-three (33/42) individuals had heart-rate variability assessed, before and after stimulation. No group effects were found. Pain decreased by 75%; 32% of people after 1 treatment reported no headache after 24 h. Mean heart rate decreased from 79.05+/-10.27 to 72.89+/-11.35 beats/min. The low-frequency (LF) and the high-frequency (HF) areas derived from power spectral analyses increased [mean 6522+/-1277 to 8315+/-1009 beats/min(2) (LF) (p=0.001) and mean 5600+/-1568 to 8755+/-3071 beats/min(2) (HF) (p=0.001)]. The LF:HF ratio decreased from mean 1.31+/-0.51 to 1.13+/-0.48 (NS). TMS produces immediate, sustained reductions in pain and modification of the ANS.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.304 · 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