MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028180476 · doi:10.1212/wnl.54.2.302

Chinook winds and migraine headache

2000· article· en· W2028180476 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinook windHeadachesMigraineMedicineOdds ratioOddsLogistic regressionDemographyInternal medicineSurgeryOncorhynchusBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of chinook weather conditions on probability of migraine headache onset. BACKGROUND: Many migraineurs believe weather to be a trigger factor for their headaches; however, there is little supportive evidence in the literature. Migraineurs in the southern part of the Canadian province of Alberta frequently report that chinooks, warm westerly winds specific to the region, trigger their headaches. METHOD: Weather data from Environment Canada were used to designate each calendar day during the study period as a chinook, prechinook, or nonchinook day. Headache data were collected from 75 patient diaries from the University of Calgary Headache Research Clinic. Individual and multiple logistic regression models were used to determine if the weather conditions affected the probability of migraine onset. RESULTS: The probability of migraine onset was increased on both prechinook days (odds ratio 1.24; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.42) and on days with chinook winds (1.19; 1.02 to 1.39) compared with nonchinook days. Analysis of chinook wind velocities revealed that for chinook days, the relative risk of migraine onset was increased only on high-wind chinook days (velocity > 38 km/h) (odds ratio 1.41; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.88). A subset of individuals was sensitive to high-wind chinook days, and another subset was only sensitive to prechinook days. Only two patients were sensitive to both weather conditions, and the majority of patients was not sensitive to either. Neither weather condition had a protective effect. Increasing age was associated with high-wind chinook sensitivity (p = 0.009) but not prechinook sensitivity (p = 0.389). CONCLUSIONS: Both prechinook and high-wind chinook days increase the probability of migraine onset in a subset of migraineurs. Because few subjects were found to be sensitive to both weather types, the mechanisms for these weather effects may be independent. This is supported by the presence of an age interaction for high-wind chinook days but not for prechinooks day.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.251 · 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