Self‐Reported Headache Frequency in Canadian Adolescents: Validation and Follow‐Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate our previous estimates of the prevalence of frequent headache and associated factors in a new sample of 12- to 13-year-old adolescent Canadians, and to explore if estimates of the prevalence of frequent headache and associated factors remain stable within the original cohort after a two-year interval. METHODS: We analyzed the self-administered questionnaire microdata files of the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY: 1998-1999). 1694 respondents representing 724,400 youth aged 12 to 13 years were used to validate the prevalence in our initial estimates. From the initial cohort, 1764 respondents representing 819,600 youth, now aged 14 to 15 years, were used to examine whether frequent headache prevalence or associated factors had changed in the intervening two years. RESULTS: Among the analyzed individuals, 26.3% of 12- to 13-year olds and 31.2% of 14- to 15-year olds reported frequent headaches of "about once a week" or more often (P= .001). Our previous study of the NLSCY: 1996-1997 found a prevalence of 26.6% in 12- to 13-year olds. We previously identified 22 risk factors, of which 15 were replicated and one proxy was available within this iteration of the survey. For the 12- to 13-year olds, 14/16 were associated (P < .01, chi-square) with frequent headaches. For the initial cohort, now 14- to 15-year olds, 15/16 risk factors remained associated (P < .01, chi-square) with an increased risk of headaches. CONCLUSIONS: Our estimates of frequent headache prevalence are reliable and consistent in two large nationally representative cohorts of 12- to 13-year olds. In the first of these groups there was an increase in prevalence over 2 years as adolescence progresses. Our identified risk factors for frequent headaches have been validated within another cohort and are maintained as the cohort ages.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".