MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2207144965 · doi:10.4081/ni.2015.6133

The behavior of migraine in patients with Parkinson's disease

2015· article· en· W2207144965 on OpenAlexaff
Celmir de Oliveira Vilaça, Marco Antônio Araújo Leite, Jano Alves de Souza, Marco Orsini, João Santos Pereira, Clayton Amaral

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology International · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMigraineMedicineDopaminergicParkinson's diseaseDiseaseCentral nervous systemInternal medicineDegeneration (medical)Central nervous system diseasePediatricsDopaminePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parkinson's disease (PD) is characterized by the degeneration of dopaminergic systems in the central nervous system. In migraine it is supposed to occur hyperactivation of central dopaminergic pathways. We verified the hypothesis of improved migraine in patients who manifest PD. We evaluated 109 patients with PD over 40 years (57 men and 52 women) about the presence throughout the life of migraine, as well as the possibility of improvement in migraine after the onset of motor symptoms of PD. This group was compared to a control group of 152 people (41 men and 152 women) without PD regarding the presence of migraine and its improvement. Twenty-one patients manifested migraine in the group with PD (16 women and 5 men) in which 13 reported improvement in migraine after the onset of symptoms of PD. Among the controls, 37 interviewed had migraine history (32 women and 5 men) among which 20 showed improvement. There was no significant difference when comparing the two groups (χ(2) 1:0,05=0.337; P<0.382). We were unable to relate the improvement of migraine with the emergence of PD motor signs, despite the degeneration of dopaminergic pathways of the central nervous system.

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 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology InternationalSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207