MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157411210 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100008295

Tension-Type Headache in Children: The Cinderella of Headache Disorders!

2009· review· en· W2157411210 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Shashi S. Seshia, Ishaq Abu‐Arafeh, Andrew D. Hershey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTension (geology)Type (biology)PediatricsPhysicsGeologyClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tension-type headache (TTH) may be as common a headache disorder as migraine in children and adolescents. TTH has a neurobiological basis with genetic and environmental factors making variable contributions to the different sub-types. The diagnostic criteria for TTH in the second edition of the "International Classification of Headache Disorders" appear to be applicable to children. Anxiety and mood disorders may be co-morbid with frequent episodic and chronic TTH. Psychosocial stressors play an important role in precipitating and maintaining TTH. Hence, a biopsychosocial approach should be adopted for care. Standardized histories and examinations together with prospective headache diaries are the foundations for good management; attention to 'red flags' will help identify secondary causes that present with headache similar to TT. There are no randomized controlled drug trials for the treatment of TTH. Relaxation and cognitive behavioral therapies are effective. TTH in children and adolescents warrants greater recognition from the clinician and scientist. Studies focusing on TTH are overdue.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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