Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cluster headache causes great misery because of the severity, frequency and repetitiveness of its attacks, and the fear (justified in a few sufferers) that the attacks will respond to nothing and will never cease. For most people with cluster headaches there is effective treatment, both for the acute attacks (subcutaneous sumatriptan, injected dihydroergotamine and oxygen inhalation) and for prophylaxis (verapamil, valproate, ergotamine, methysergide, lithium carbonate and corticosteroids). For the 10% of suffers who respond to no medications, or have to discontinue them because of serious adverse effects, surgical ablation of the trigeminal root or nervus intermedius is a last resort that helps only some. Correct diagnosis is an essential prelude to an appropriate treatment. Serious disease such as carotid dissection, and aneurysm may occasionally mimic cluster headache, but seldom perfectly enough to confuse a careful clinician. In terms of sorting out the diagnosis, the recently recognized relatives of cluster headache ‐‐ chronic and episodic paroxysmal hemicrania, and short‐lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache with conjunctival injection and tearing syndrome ‐‐ are more problematic. These are important to recognize because they do not respond to ′cluster treatment′, but the paroxysmal hemicranias respond to indomethacin, whereas the cluster headache does not. A more distant family member, hemicrania continua, is usually, but not always, responsive to indomethacin and sometimes bears a passing resemblance to cluster headache. An unrelated entity, hypnic headache, has confused a few clinicians who did not bear in mind that a detailed history is the key to headache diagnosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".