The Importance of Some Possible Somatic and Environmental Risk Factors for the Development of Migraine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The study of risk factors of migraine is important, not least because migraine prevalence seems to increase. The knowledge of risk factors remains limited, however, despite years of research. The objective was to evaluate some possible somatic and environmental risk factors for the development of migraine. Methods: The Danish Twin Omnibus 1994 and 2002 were questionnaire surveys investigating somatic disorders, lifestyle factors and socioeconomic factors. Both studies used the same validated questions to diagnose migraine. The study population included twin individuals born between 1953 and 1976 who in 1994 reported never to have had migraine. We compared the groups with and without a specific disorder or environmental factor in 1994 with regard to their migraine status in 2002. Results: This study comprised 13,498 subjects (6,513 men and 6,985 women). The 8-year risk of developing migraine was significantly increased in subjects who already had low back pain (odds ratio (OR) = 1.3; 95% CI = 1.2 - 1.4). Environmental factors associated with an increased risk of development of migraine were low education (OR = 1.3; 95% CI = 1.1 - 1.5), heavy physical workload (OR = 1.1; 95% CI = 1.0 - 1.2), heavy physical recreational activity (OR = 1.2; 95% CI = 1.0 - 1.3) and body mass index (BMI) < 18.5 (OR = 1.3; 95% CI = 1.1 - 1.6). Subjects with weekly or more frequent alcohol consumption had a lower risk of developing migraine compared to subjects with less frequent or no consumption of alcohol (OR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.6 - 0.7). Conclusions: This large-scale longitudinal population-based study showed that the risk of development of self-reported migraine was increased in subjects with low back pain, low education, heavy physical workload and heavy physical recreational activity, and decreased in those with frequent alcohol consumption. J Neurol Res. 2015;5(3):193-198 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jnr336w
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".