Migraine Patients with or without Vertigo: Comparison of Clinical and Electronystagmographic Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To find the differences between patients with migraine with and without vertigo. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study. SETTING: Ambulatory dizziness centre of a tertiary referral hospital. METHODS: Eighty-four patients with migraine (31 with headache, 53 with headache and vertigo) according to the diagnostic criteria of migraine published by the International Headache Society in 1988 were included in the study. Patient history, vestibular tests, electronystagmography (ENG), and imaging studies were performed for differential diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical findings and ENG parameters. RESULTS: Fifty-three of 84 patients (63%) had episodic vertigo attacks. Vertigo was independent from headache in 24 patients (45%). Vertigo symptoms always appeared later in the history of migraine headache. Headache started at age 27 +/- 8.3 years and vertigo symptoms began 7.7 +/- 8.7 years later. The beginning age of the migraine and female-to-male ratio were significantly greater in the vertigo group. Fifty-eight of the 84 patients had ENG testing. Fifty-eight percent of the patients with migraine and 55% of the patients with migraine + vertigo had abnormal ENG findings. None of the tests except the Dix-Hallpike manoeuvre had a statistically significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The presence of the same ENG abnormalities in patients with pure headache shows that the vestibular pathways are also affected in these patients, even when there are no vestibular symptoms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".