MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Challenge of Evidence-Based Migraine Therapy

2000· review· en· W2093020112 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCephalalgia · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryWinnipeg Regional Health Authority
FundersInternational Headache Society
KeywordsMedicineMigraineAlternative medicineClinical trialEvidence-based medicineClinical PracticeMEDLINEMedical educationFamily medicinePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is important that physicians practise evidence-based medicine. Clinical experience is important, but there are a number of reasons why clinical experience can lead to the impression that ineffective treatments are effective. There are major educational and research challenges which must be met before clinicians can practice evidence-based migraine therapy more extensively than at present. Treating physicians will need to learn more about the principles of evidence-based medicine. Researchers will need to produce more and better clinical trials that address important clinical questions. The results of these trials will need to be reported clearly, and we need to improve the efficiency with which these results can be accessed. It is important that the pharmaceutical industry, clinicians, and academic health centres work together to meet these challenges.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.322
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.100 · 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