MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106822449 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100003371

Mixed Migraine and Tension-type: A Common Cause of Recurrent Headache in Children

2004· article· en· W2106822449 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Shashi S. Seshia

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMigraineMedicinePediatricsObservational studyPediatric NeurologyNeurologyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Determine relative frequency of recurrent headache (HA) types in children and adolescents referred to a pediatric neurologist. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, sequential, and observational. SETTING: Private practice Pediatric Neurology Clinic in a Canadian city (Winnipeg). Patients and data collection: Information on those referred with HA between September 1998 and December 2001 was entered on data sheets. Patients were followed up for one month to four years. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty (69%) of 463 referred with HA had recurrent HA. There were 172 males (54%) and 148 (46%) females. Their ages ranged from two years to 19 years (median: 11 years). They had had their HA disorder for one month to 14 years (median: two years) prior to assessment. Migraine was the main HA type in 124 (38%), tension-type headache (TTH) in 57 (18%) and mixed migraine and TTH in 101 (32%). Thus, 101 (45%) of 225 with migraine as one HA type also had TTH. CONCLUSIONS: Tension-type headache and migraine frequently co-exist and may represent a distinct headache type, at least in children; the association will likely influence response of affected children and adolescents to specific migraine treatments in clinical trials or practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207