Exploring the Relationship Between Maternal Migraine and Child Functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between mothers' migraines and the roles and expectations of their children. METHODS: Twenty-five mothers diagnosed with migraine completed questionnaires concerning their levels of migraine-related disability and their parenting and child-rearing attitudes. Migraine-related disability was assessed using the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (version 2.1). Parenting and child-rearing attitudes were assessed using the Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory. RESULTS: Significant positive relationships were found between the mothers' migraine-related disability and both inappropriate expectations of their children and parent-child role reversal; ie, the more migraine-related disability reported by the mothers, the more they reported having inappropriate expectations of their children and favoring parent-child role reversal. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that migraine may be associated with dysfunctional parenting patterns. More specifically, it suggests that in families wherein the mother has migraine, children may be at risk of inappropriately or prematurely assuming roles for which they are developmentally unready. Clinical implications are that mothers with migraine may benefit from some type of family-focused intervention, in addition to headache 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".