Prevention has an important role in the treatment of migraines, researchers say
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prophylaxis should be considered for patients whose migraines affect their quality of life despite appropriate symptomatic treatment, or who are at risk of headache through overuse of drugs, says a Canadian systematic review of studies investigating migraine prevention. ( CMAJ 2010 doi:10.1503/cmaj.081657). The review, by researchers from the University of Calgary, looked at prospective, double blind, randomised, controlled trials of drugs commonly used in clinical practice in North America and Europe to prevent migraines. These included antiepileptics, antidepressants, antihypertensives and vitamins, minerals, and herbal agents. The antidepressant amitriptyline and the antiepileptic topiramate were shown to be “very effective”—most people experience clinically significant improvement. Four trials evaluated amitriptyline as prophylaxis for migraine, and all reported a beneficial effect. One trial of 100 patients found an odds ratio of 2.41 (95% confidence interval 1.07 to …
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 | 0.032 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.010 |
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.
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".