Evaluation of cognitive impairment in patients with episodic migraine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the presence of cognitive deficits in patients with episodic migraine and control group, and to compare with the results previously described in the literature. METHODS: Patients with episodic migraine were included according to the International Headache Society criteria, and a control group was selected, matched by sex, age, and schooling. Patients were asked about the frequency and intensity of headaches, medications used, and comorbidities. Afterwards, a neuropsychological assessment was applied using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the clock drawing test, the verbal fluency test, and the Stroop test. The main variables influencing cognitive dysfunctions were analyzed (depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, sleep disorder, use of medication). RESULTS: Thirty patients with episodic migraine and 30 controls were evaluated. Patients with episodic migraine had a performance in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test (p=0.53), the clock drawing test (p=0.80), the verbal fluency test (p=0.44) and the Stroop test (p=0.97) similar to the control group. Patients with chronic migraine (30 patients and 30 controls) performed a Montreal Cognitive Assessment test (p=0.00), verbal fluency test (p=0.00) and Stroop test (p=0.00) lower than the group control. The main variables influencing cognitive disorders were studied by linear regression, and none of these variables was an influencing factor in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test. CONCLUSION: Patients with episodic migraine did not present cognitive deficits compared to a control group.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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".