Untangling the Association Between Migraine, Pain, and Anxiety: Examining Migraine and Generalized Anxiety Disorders in a Canadian Population Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to investigate: (1) the prevalence and unadjusted and adjusted odds of 12-month generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) among adults with migraine in comparison to those without migraine; (2) If debilitating pain and/or limitations in instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) are mediators of the migraine-GAD association; and (3) Factors associated with past year GAD among adults with migraine. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of the nationally representative 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey-Mental Health (CCHS-MS), a population-based survey of community dwellers with a response rate of 68.9%. The first subsample included those with (n = 2232) and without migraine (n = 19,270), and the second subsample was restricted to those with migraine (n = 2232). GAD was based on the WHO-CIDI scale. RESULTS: Fully, 6% of those with migraines had past year GAD in comparison of 2.1% of those without migraine (P < .001). The socio-demographically adjusted odds of past year GAD were two and a half times higher among those with migraine than those without (OR= 2.46; 95% CI = 2.00, 3.02). A path analysis indicated that debilitating pain and limitations in IADLs were mediators in the relationship between migraine and GAD. In the sample restricted to migraineurs, the factors associated with higher odds of 12-month GAD included having a university degree, having low income, being without a confidant, and being male. CONCLUSIONS: Generalized anxiety disorder is robustly associated with migraine and targeted outreach and interventions are warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".