MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Zolmitriptan Orally Disintegrating Tablet is Effective in the Acute Treatment of Migraine

2002· article· en· W2059236456 on OpenAlexaff
AJ Dowson, E. Anne MacGregor, R. Allan Purdy, WJ Becker, J Green, SL Levy

Bibliographic record

VenueCephalalgia · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
FundersAstraZeneca
KeywordsZolmitriptanMedicineMigrainePlaceboAnesthesiaSumatriptanInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new formulation of zolmitriptan has been developed that dissolves on the tongue without the need for additional fluid intake. In this double-blind, parallel study, 471 patients were randomized to receive the zolmitriptan orally disintegrating tablet 2.5 mg (n=231) or matching placebo (n=240) to treat a single moderate or severe migraine. Headache relief following zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (63%) was significantly greater than with placebo (22%) at 2 h post-dose (primary endpoint; P < 0.0001). The zolmitriptan orally disintegrating tablet was also significantly more effective than placebo for 1-, 2- and 4-h pain-free response (8% vs. 3%, P=0.0207, 27% vs. 7%, P < 0.0001, and 37% vs. 11%, P < 0.0001, respectively). Of those patients stating a preference, 70% of patients preferred the orally disintegrating tablet to a conventional tablet. Zolmitriptan orally disintegrating tablets are an effective and convenient alternative to a conventional tablet, allowing migraine attacks to be treated anytime a migraine strikes, which can facilitate earlier treatment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designRandomized trial
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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCephalalgiaSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207