Motor and Occipital Cortex Excitability in Migraine Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated motor and occipital cortex excitability in migraine patients using transcranial magnetic stimulation. METHODS: In this study, we included 15 migraine patients with aura (MwA), 15 patients without aura (MwoA) between attacks, and 31 normal healthy controls. Motor thresholds at rest, amplitudes of motor evoked potentials, central motor conduction time and cortical silent period were measured by stimulation of the motor cortex by using 13.5 cm circular coil and recording from abductor digiti minimi muscle. Additionally, phosphene production and the threshold of phosphene production was determined by stimulation of the visual cortex with the same coil. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the groups with respect to the motor thresholds, Motor evoked potential max/compound muscle action potential max (MEPmax/Mmax) amplitudes, central motor conduction times and duration of cortical silent period. Although not statistically significant, the proportion of the migraineurs with phosphene generation (90%) was found to be higher than that of normal controls (71%). Phosphene threshold levels in migraine patients, however, were significantly lower than those of the controls with MwA patients having the lowest levels. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that the occipital cortex, but not the motor cortex, is hyperexcitable in migraine patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".