MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Self‐Reported Headache Frequency and Features Associated With Frequent Headaches in Canadian Young Adolescents

2004· article· en· W2034688498 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kevin Gordon, Joseph M. Dooley, Ellen Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueHeadache The Journal of Head and Face Pain · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeadachesMedicineDepression (economics)Microdata (statistics)Multivariate analysisDemographyPediatricsPsychologyPsychiatryPopulationEnvironmental healthCensusInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore the associated factors for frequent headache among young adolescent Canadians. METHODS: We analyzed the self-administered questionnaire microdata files of the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY: 1996 to 1997). Two thousand and ninety respondents representing 793,100 Canadian youth aged 12 to 13 years were asked how often they had headaches in the previous 6 months. RESULTS: Of the 2090 adolescents, 1998 (96%) responded. Frequent headaches of "about once a week" or more often were reported by 26.6% of them aged 12 to 13 years (95% CI: 24.2, 28.6). Frequent headaches appear to be associated with a plethora of risk factors germane to the life experience of these young adolescents. All factors were significant at P <.0001 by chi-square analysis and can be loosely categorized as school-related, lifestyle-related, or involving mental health. A multivariate Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis models frequent headaches on a depression scale, a self-esteem scale, and ever having smoked, with 60% sensitivity, and 65% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: The NLSCY reveals a remarkable insight into headache frequency and the life experience of Canada's young adolescents with frequent headaches.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations56
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeadache The Journal of Head and Face PainSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207