MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322051673 · doi:10.1177/0333102413519512

Nutraceuticals in the prophylaxis of pediatric migraine: Evidence-based review and recommendations

2014· review· en· W2322051673 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCephalalgia · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGinkgo biloba and Cashew Applications
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNutraceuticalMedicineMigraineObservational studyRandomized controlled trialPediatricsInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The literature on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is expanding. One of the most common conditions for which CAM is studied in the pediatric population is migraine. Nutraceuticals are a form of CAM that is being used for pediatric migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: A literature search was carried out in order to identify both observational studies and randomized controlled trials on the use of nutraceuticals for the prophylaxis of pediatric migraine. Adult studies on included nutraceuticals were also reviewed. REVIEW: Thirty studies were reviewed on six different nutraceuticals: butterbur, riboflavin, ginkgolide B, magnesium, coenzyme Q10 and polyunsaturated fatty acids. CONCLUSION: Overall, the quality of the evidence for the use of nutraceuticals in pediatric migraine prophylaxis is poor. Further research needs to be done in order to study the efficacy of nutraceuticals for the prophylaxis of pediatric migraine.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.309 · 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