MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Post-craniotomy headache: A proposed revision of IHS diagnostic criteria

2009· article· en· W2034182552 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
PAS Rocha-Filho, JLD Gherpelli, JTT de Siqueira, GD Rabello

Bibliographic record

VenueCephalalgia · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeadachesIncidence (geometry)International Classification of Headache DisordersSurgeryPediatricsAnesthesiaPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seventy-nine patients with intracranial aneurysms were evaluated in the presurgical period, and followed up to 6 months after surgery. We compare patients who fulfilled with those that did not post-craniotomy headache (PCH) diagnostic criteria, according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Semistructured interviews, headache diaries, Short Form-36 and McGill Pain Questionnaire were used. Seventy-two patients (91%) had headaches during the follow-up period. The incidence of PCH according to the International Headache Society diagnostic criteria was 40%. Age, sex, type of surgery, temporomandibular disorder, vasospasm, presence and type of previous headaches, and subarachnoid haemorrhage were not related to headache classification. There were no differences in the quality of life, headache frequency and characteristics or pain intensity between patients with headache that fulfilled or not PCH criteria. We proposed a revision of the diagnostic criteria for PCH, extending the headache outset after surgery from 7 to 30 days, and including the presence of headaches after surgery in patients with no past history of headaches, or an increase in headache frequency during the first 30 days of the postsurgical period followed by a decrease over time. Using these criteria we would classify 65% of our patients as having PCH.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCephalalgiaSame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207