MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Syncope in migraine

2006· letter· en· W2084287703 on OpenAlexaff
Roland D. Thijs, Mark C. Kruit, Mark A. van Buchem, Michel D. Ferrari, L.J. Launer, J. Gert van Dijk

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSyncope (phonology)MigraineMedicineCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between migraine and syncope-related autonomic nervous system (ANS) symptoms. METHODS: A population-based study among migraineurs with and without aura (n = 323) and control subjects (n = 153) was conducted. A systematic questionnaire and cardiovascular measurements during rest, while standing, and after venipuncture addressed the prevalence of syncope, orthostatic intolerance, orthostatic hypotension (OH), and the postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS) in migraineurs and control subjects. RESULTS: The lifetime prevalence of syncope in all participants was 41%, more often in women (45 vs 32%; p = 0.02). Compared with control subjects, migraineurs had a higher lifetime prevalence of syncope (46 vs 31%; p = 0.001), frequent syncope (five or more attacks) (13 vs 5%; p = 0.02), and orthostatic intolerance (32 vs 12%; p < 0.001). There was no association between ANS symptoms and the severity of migraine or migraine subtype. Cardiovascular measurements and the prevalence of POTS and OH did not differ significantly between migraineurs and control subjects. CONCLUSION: This population-based study demonstrated an elevated prevalence of syncope and orthostatic intolerance in migraineurs without clear interictal signs of autonomic nervous system dysfunction.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations129
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersFrench-language works237,207