The Migraine ACE Model: Evaluating the Impact on Time Lost and Medical Resource Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the Migraine Adaptive Cost-Effectiveness Model in the context of an analysis of a simulated population of Canadian patients with migraine. BACKGROUND: The high prevalence of migraine and its substantial impact on patients' ability to function normally present a significant economic burden to society. In light of the recent availability of improved pharmaceutical treatments, a model was developed to assess their economic impact. METHODS: The Migraine Adaptive Cost-Effectiveness Model incorporates the costs of time lost from both work and nonwork activities, as well as medical resource and medication use. Using Monte Carlo techniques, the model simulates the experience of a population of patients with migraine over the course of 1 year. As an example, analyses of a Canadian population were carried out using data from a multinational trial, surveys, national statistics, and the available literature. RESULTS: Using customary therapy, mean productivity losses (amounting to 84 hours of paid work time, 48 hours of unpaid work time, and 113 hours of leisure time lost) were estimated to cost $1949 (in 1997 Canadian dollars) per patient, with medical expenditures adding an average of $280 to the cost of illness. CONCLUSIONS: With customary treatment patterns, the costs of migraine associated with reduced functional capacity are substantial. The migraine model represents a flexible tool for the economic evaluation of different migraine treatments in various populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".