MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920834447 · doi:10.17116/jnevro201911902139

Memory and attention deficit in migraine: overlooked symptoms

2019· article· en· W2920834447 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Н. В. Латышева, E. G. Filatova, D. V. Osipova

Bibliographic record

VenueS S Korsakov Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigit symbol substitution testMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineMigraineAnxietyDepression (economics)AudiologyCognitionInternal medicinePsychiatryCognitive impairment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To evaluate the prevalence of objective cognitive impairment (CI) in patients with episodic migraine (EM) during the interictal period and in the chronic migraine (CM) population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-four patients with CM and 42 patients with low-frequency EM (less than 4 headache days a month), aged 18-59, were enrolled. Depression and anxiety were assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Cognitive functions were evaluated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale (MoCA), Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT). RESULTS: In the CM group DSST and MoCA performance as well as the RAVLT total learning index were significantly decreased compared to EM; 38% of CM patients scored lower than 26 points of the MoCA scale. Negative correlations between headache frequency and DSST and MoCA results were observed. There was no correlation between cognitive test performance and anxiety/depression levels. CONCLUSION: Patients with EM and CM present with objective CI. The prevalence and severity of cognitive deficits rise with increasing headache frequency.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueS S Korsakov Journal of Neurology and PsychiatrySame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207