MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518034921 · doi:10.1186/s10194-016-0667-0

Cognitive dysfunctions and psychological symptoms in migraine without aura: a cross-sectional study

2016· article· en· W2518034921 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Headache and Pain · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApathyMigraineAuraMontreal Cognitive AssessmentBeck Depression InventoryMedicineAnxietyPsychiatryBeck Anxiety InventoryCognitionInternal medicinePhysical therapyClinical psychologyCognitive impairment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The occurrence of cognitive dysfunctions and psychological symptoms, as well as their mutual relationships, in migraine patients are still debated. The aim of the study was to characterize the cognitive profile and psychological symptoms (i.e. depression, anxiety and apathy) in drug-naïve migraine without aura (MwoA) patients. METHODS: Seventy-two consecutive MwoA patients, referred to the Italian University Headache Clinic and 72 healthy subjects (HCs) were enrolled. Patients, during an attack-free period, and HCs completed Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), Self-version of Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES-S) and State and Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-Y-1 and 2). Clinical parameters of disease severity (i.e. disease duration, migraine attacks per month, mean pain intensity during migraine attacks, migraine disability and impact on daily life) were recorded. RESULTS: Although performance of MwoA patients on MoCA was above Italian cut-off threshold (<15.5) suggesting presence of cognitive impairment, MwoA patients achieved significantly lower scores than HCs on total MoCA scale (22.3 ± 2.7 versus 25.4 ± 2.3) and on its attention (4.9 ± 1.1 versus 5.6 ± 0.7), memory (1.8 ± 1.4 versus 3.1 ± 1.3), visuospatial (3.2 ± 0.9 versus 3.6 ± 0.6) and executive subscales (2.6 ± 1.1 versus 3.1 ± 0.8). In addition, we observed significant correlations between MoCA executive domain subscore and the attack-related disability score (MIDAS). As for behavioral profile, the percentage of depressive symptoms (4.2 %), high state and trait anxiety (13.9 and 9.7 %, respectively), and apathy (11.1 %) in MwoA patients were similar to that of HCs. No significant associations of behavioural symptoms with cognitive performance and clinical parameters were found. CONCLUSIONS: Drug-naïve MwoA patients are characterized by subtle cognitive dysfunctions and low percentage of behavioural symptoms. The results support the importance of searching for subclinical cognitive disturbances in patients with MwoA, who deserve to be followed-up to verify whether they develop clinically relevant disorders over time.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.314 · 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