Guideline for primary care management of headache in adults.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To increase the use of evidence-informed approaches to diagnosis, investigation, and treatment of headache for patients in primary care. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: A comprehensive search was conducted for relevant guidelines and systematic reviews published between January 2000 and May 2011. The guidelines were critically appraised using the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) tool, and the 6 highest-quality guidelines were used as seed guidelines for the guideline adaptation process. MAIN MESSAGE: A multidisciplinary guideline development group of primary care providers and other specialists crafted 91 specific recommendations using a consensus process. The recommendations cover diagnosis, investigation, and management of migraine, tension-type, medication-overuse, and cluster headache. CONCLUSION: A clinical practice guideline for the Canadian health care context was created using a guideline adaptation process to assist multidisciplinary primary care practitioners in providing evidence-informed care for patients with headache.
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".