MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049192995 · doi:10.1017/s031716710000473x

Pain Free Efficacy of Sumatriptan in the Early Treatment of Migraine

2006· article· en· W2049192995 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Susan Jelinski, Werner J. Becker, Suzanne Christie, Faiz Ahmad, William Pryse‐Phillips, Scott D. Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandGlaxoSmithKline (Canada)Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of Calgary
FundersGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsSumatriptanTriptansMedicinePlaceboMigraineAnesthesiaPlacebo groupRandomized controlled trialClinical trialSurgeryInternal medicineAgonist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that headache response rates may be higher if triptans are used early when a migraine attack is still mild, as compared to when it is treated after pain has reached moderate or severe intensity. METHODS: In this randomized, double blind, placebo controlled, parallel group clinical trial, 361 patients took either placebo, sumatriptan 50 mg, or sumatriptan 100 mg in a single attack study. The primary outcome measure was pain-free status at two hours. RESULTS: In the intention to treat group, two hour pain free rates were 16%, 40%, and 50% in the placebo group, sumatriptan 50 mg group, and the sumatriptan 100 mg group respectively (p < 0.001, active treatment groups vs. placebo). CONCLUSIONS: Both sumatriptan 50 mg and 100 mg were significantly superior to placebo for the pain-free end point at two hours. The pain-free response rates in this trial where sumatriptan was taken while the headache was still mild were generally higher than in older clinical trials where headache was treated after reaching a moderate or severe intensity.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.242 · 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.

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

Citations24
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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