MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Binocular Rivalry in Migraine

2008· article· en· W2166348334 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCephalalgia · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalYork University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaKrembil Foundation
KeywordsBinocular rivalryRivalryAuraMigraineNeuroscienceAudiologyPsychologyMedicineVisual perceptionAnesthesiaPerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cortical hyperexcitability in migraine could arise from abnormally weak inhibition or from strengthened intracortical excitatory mechanisms. The present study employed binocular rivalry to differentiate between these possibilities. Rivalry between static oriented grating patterns was examined in migraine with aura (MA), migraine without aura (MoA) and headache-free control participants. A non-significant trend toward elevated mean dominance intervals (monocular percepts, in seconds) was seen in both migraine groups at all contrasts. Second, significant interocular differences in rivalry dominance durations were seen in the MoA group compared with controls; this difference also approached significance in the MA group. Finally, both MA and MoA exhibited significantly greater visual discomfort than the control group in the presence of both static stripes and flickering visual stimuli. The rivalry results provide no support for weakened intracortical inhibition in migraine. Optical or neural precortical differences in the eyes' input strengths paired with enhanced recurrent cortical excitation can explain these findings.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.237 · 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