MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332200705 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100118980

Guideline Summary for Primary Care Physicians

2013· article· en· W2332200705 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Werner J. Becker, Irene Worthington

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineMedicineMigrainePrimary careExpert opinionFamily medicineMEDLINEAlternative medicineIntensive care medicinePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many of the recommendations in this guideline are summarized here to provide a compact source of information for the primary care physician. More detailed discussion can be found in the main guideline document. Tables 2, 11A and 11B in Section 3 of the main guideline document list all the acute treatment strategies, and the medications used in each one. Table 9 in Section 3 summarizes medications dosages and side effects. Recommendations related to the efficacy of individual drugs are based on a comprehensive targeted review. Expert consensus statements regarding other aspects of acute migraine treatment are based on a general literature review and expert opinion. All patients for whom acute migraine medications are being prescribed should be educated regarding the common migraine triggers and the important lifestyle factors that may potentially influence their migraine disorder.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0640.043

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207