MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040931676 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100006818

Ophthalmoplegic Migraine: Inflammatory Neuropathy with Secondary Migraine?

2007· review· en· W2040931676 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hugh J. McMillan, D. L. Keene, Paul Mazhuvanchary Jacob, Peter Humphreys

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMigraineMedicineNeuroimagingNatural historyPediatricsPresentation (obstetrics)AnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This critical review provides a summary of the clinical presentation, neuroimaging, treatment and prognosis in pediatric ophthalmoplegic migraine (OM). The features of OM are not in keeping with its classification as a migraine-variant. METHOD: We review 3 new and 37 reported pediatric OM cases. RESULTS: Headache was an inconsistent feature, with 25% patients showing no evidence of pain at the initial OM episode. Patients demonstrated: 1) prolonged time for symptom resolution to occur (median time 3 weeks); 2) tendency for recurrent episodes to have more severe and persistent nerve involvement; 3) evidence of permanent neurological sequelae with recurrent episodes (30% of patients); 4) rapid improvement and shortened duration with corticosteroid therapy and; 5) transient, reversible MRI contrast enhancement of the affected cranial nerve (86% of patients). These features would not be expected in primary migraine headache. CONCLUSION: A detailed understanding of the natural history of OM is essential for the clinical. This review provides support that OM may result from cranial nerve inflammation with headache a secondary and later feature of this condition.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.258 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations48
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207