N Alpha Methyl Histamine Versus Propranolol in Migraine Prophylaxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the subcutaneous administration of N alpha methyl histamine versus oral propranolol in the treatment of migraine prophylaxis. BACKGROUND: N alpha methyl histamine has a selective affinity for H3 receptors and could constitute a new therapeutic drug in migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: Sixty patients with migraine were selected and enrolled in a 12-week double-blind controlled clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of subcutaneous administration of N-alpha methyl histamine (1 to 3 ug twice a week ) n=30, compared to administration of 120 mg/day of oral propranolol n=30. the variables were: headache intensity, frequency of attacks, duration of migraine attacks and analgesic intake. RESULTS: fifty five patients completed the study. the data collected during the 4th week of treatment revealed that N alpha methyl histamine and propranolol caused a significantly (p<0.01) greater reduction between the basal values and final values of every variable studied. CONCLUSIONS: Both N alpha methyl histamine and propranolol are similarly effective in reducing or eliminating the headache in migraine prophylaxis. low doses of N-alpha methyl histamine injected subcutaneously may represent a novel and effective therapeutic alternative in migraine patients and may lay the clinical and pharmacological groundwork for the use of H3 receptor agonist in migraine prophylaxis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".