MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313216651 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100003620

Progress in Clinical Neurosciences: Migraine-Stroke: A Causal Relationship, but Which Direction?

2004· review· en· W2313216651 on OpenAlexaffvenue
R. Kern

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
FundersAstraZeneca
KeywordsMigraineStroke (engine)AuraMedicineMigraine with auraCortical spreading depressionIschemiaPopulationCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A significant association between migraine and ischemic stroke has been demonstrated in population and case-control studies. The risk of ischemic stroke appears to be higher in migraine with aura (MWA) than migraine without aura (MwoA). Migraine-stroke comprises a number of distinct entities, including migrainous infarction, in which ischemic stroke occurs during an attack of MWA and migraine-related stroke, in which the causal link is less clear. Migrainous infarction accounts for only one-third of migraine-stroke, strokes may occur during attacks of MwoA, and a number of cerebrovascular disorders may present as MWA or MwoA. Migraine may occur as a consequence of conditions that are known to cause stroke; therefore it remains to be determined whether migraine predisposes to stroke in the absence of any known disease associations, if it is an epiphenomenon of an underlying stroke diathesis, or if it requires the presence of another stroke risk factor to produce cerebral ischemia. Furthermore, it is unclear if ischemia results in migraine more often than migraine results in ischemia. Careful clinical studies that evaluate this bidirectional relationship are needed to determine why migraine patients are subject to a higher risk of ischemic stroke.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations9
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