MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995134874 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100001876

Communication Issues in Migraine Diagnosis

2002· review· en· W1995134874 on OpenAlexaffvenue
John Edmeads

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMigraineCLARITYRelevance (law)MedicineFoundation (evidence)Communication skillsMigraine DisordersPsychologyIntensive care medicinePsychiatryMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To examine the importance of good communication when informing the patient of the diagnosis of migraine; to review the essentials of successful communication between physician and patient on the aspect of diagnosis; to survey learning resources for physicians on communicating information to patients. METHODS: This paper is based on observations made by the author of the successful interactions of numerous international "headache experts" with their patients, on a review of the medical education literature pertaining to the teaching of communication skills, and on 30 years of not always successful communication with patients. RESULTS: Communicating the diagnosis of migraine is an opportunity to educate and reassure the patient, to lay the foundation for rational treatment and to help establish the successful doctor-patient relationship which is essential for effective management. No matter how accurate the diagnosis, failure to communicate it effectively to the patient (and often to significant others) may impair interactions with the patient and compromise therapy. Effective communication of a diagnosis requires clarity, relevance to the patient, a positive attitude, and reinforcement through repetition, questioning and dialogue. In terms of using the diagnosis to lay a foundation for therapy, it is useful to explain the symptoms as transient physical dysfunction of normal tissues, to indicate that there are multiple mechanisms underlying the dysfunction of which only some may presently be susceptible to treatment and to stress the relevance of emotions as factors which may powerfully affect, for better or worse, the underlying disturbed physiology of migraine. Into this model can be "plugged" all the relevant therapies for migraine. This is the ideal, but every day experience in the headache consultant's office suggest that in both primary care and specialist practice, it is infrequently attained. There are scant resources other than example for physicians to learn communication of headache diagnosis specifically but there are numerous print and web resources available to physicians wh wish to learn and/or teach the generic principles of effective communication, and these principles require little or no modification to be applied to the headache patient and the headache doctor.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.245 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207