Cognitive dysfunctions and psychological symptoms in migraine without aura: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".