MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075675719 · doi:10.1159/000085038

Defining Response in Migraine: Which Endpoints Are Important?

2005· review· en· W2075675719 on OpenAlexaff
John Edmeads

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Neurology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriptansTolerabilityRizatriptanMigraineMedicineOnset of actionAnesthesiaAdverse effectClinical trialAcute migraineClinical endpointInternal medicineSumatriptan

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary endpoint traditionally measured in clinical trials of triptans for acute migraine therapy has been 2-hour pain relief, a decrease in pain intensity from moderate/severe to mild/none. Although harder to achieve, endpoints such as 2-hour pain free and the composite measure sustained pain free are now preferred as they better reflect what patients desire from medication, namely rapid onset of action, and complete and lasting relief of pain. A comprehensive meta-analysis has shown that oral triptans differ in their ability to achieve these endpoints, with almotriptan 12.5 mg, eletriptan 80 mg and rizatriptan 10 mg providing the highest likelihood of success. Although all triptans have simple and consistent pharmacokinetic features, they also have specific differences that may play a part in their differing clinical attributes. Incorporating tolerability to generate a more stringent endpoint, sustained pain free with no adverse events (SNAE), may provide an even better representation of patients' expectations. Comparison of SNAE rates using data from the meta-analysis of oral triptans indicates that almotriptan 12.5 mg has the best balance of high efficacy and good tolerability.

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)0.087
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0870.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.301 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
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

Citations20
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean NeurologySame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207