MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734176454 · doi:10.1080/09540261.2017.1326882

Depression comorbidity in migraine

2017· review· en· W2734176454 on OpenAlexaff
Farnaz Amoozegar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Psychiatry · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComorbidityMigraineDepression (economics)Major depressive disorderPsychiatryMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)EpidemiologyClinical psychologyPsychologyInternal medicineCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Migraine and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) are highly prevalent conditions that can lead to significant disability. These conditions are often comorbid, and several studies shed light on the underlying reasons for this comorbidity. The purpose of this review article is to have a closer look at the epidemiology, pathophysiology, genetic and environmental factors, temporal association, treatment options, and prognosis of patients suffering from both conditions, to allow a better understanding of what factors underlie this comorbidity. Studies show that patients with migraine are 2-4-times more likely to develop lifetime MDD, predominantly due to similar underlying pathophysiologic and genetic mechanisms. There appears to be a bidirectional temporal association between the two conditions, although longitudinal studies are needed to determine this more definitively. Quality-of-life and health-related outcomes are worse for patients that suffer from both conditions. Thus, a careful assessment of the patient with access to appropriate resources and follow-up is paramount. Future studies in genetics and brain imaging will be helpful in further elucidating the underlying mechanisms in these comorbid conditions, which will hopefully lead to better treatment options.

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations74
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of PsychiatrySame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207