MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793051137 · doi:10.1177/0333102418758283

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine in adults

2018· article· en· W2793051137 on OpenAlexaff
Cristina Tassorelli, Hans‐Christoph Diener, David W. Dodick, Stephen D. Silberstein, Richard B. Lipton, Messoud Ashina, Werner J. Becker, Michel D. Ferrari, Peter J. Goadsby, Patricia Pozo‐Rosich, Shuu‐Jiun Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCephalalgia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteOntario Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineMigraineChronic MigraineAlternative medicineClinical trialPsychiatryPhysical therapyPediatricsIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Quality clinical trials form an essential part of the evidence base for the treatment of headache disorders. In 1991, the International Headache Society Clinical Trials Standing Committee developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Migraine. In 2008, the Committee published the first specific guidelines on chronic migraine. Subsequent advances in drug, device, and biologicals development, as well as novel trial designs, have created a need for a revision of the chronic migraine guidelines. Objective The present update is intended to optimize the design of controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine in adults, and its recommendations do not apply to trials in children or adolescents.

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)0.265
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.310
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2650.310
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.019
Bibliometrics0.0140.015
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0160.005
Research integrity0.0190.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.014

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.317 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations385
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCephalalgiaSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207