Anatomical Variants of the Circle of Willis and Brain Lesions in Migraineurs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some reports demonstrated vascular alterations in brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in migraineurs and a relationship between circle of Willis (Circle) variants and lacunar brain infarcts. We examined anomalies of the whole circle of Willis and their relationship with vascular brain lesions in migraineurs, to identify any possible vascular mechanism in migraine. METHODS: We studied, with a cohort controlled study, the circle of Willis in migraineurs seen consecutively in our Headache Center, and in non-headache controls, using angio-MRI of the brain. Statistical analysis used ANOVA, Scheffè's criterion, t-student test. RESULTS: We recruited 270 migraineurs (204 without aura (MWOA), 66 with aura (MWA) and 159 controls. Migraineurs presented an anatomical variant in 108 (40%) cases with 34 controls (21.4%) presenting a variant. We found a significant association between MWOA and variants (OR=2.4 CI95% [1.5 to 3.9]) and between MWA and variants (OR=3.2 CI95% [1.6 to 4.1]). Unilateral posterior variants with basilar hypoplasia are statistically associated only with MWA compared to controls (OR=9.2, CI95% [2.3 to 37.2]). Thirty-three percent of MWOA and 24% of MWA sufferers present some kind of brain lesion, included 2% of infra-tentorial lesions. We did not find any statistical association between the presence of Circle variants and ischemic lesions on MRI (OR=1.5 CI95% [0.68; 1.94]), or with infratentorial lacunar lesions (OR=1.58 CI95% [0.48 to 5.24]). CONCLUSIONS: Anatomical variants of the Circle of Willis are significantly more frequent in migraineurs; posterior anomalies are more frequent in MWA, suggesting a vascular mechanism provoking changes in cerebral blood flow, thereby stimulating cortical spreading depression.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".