MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955652411 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000007856

Two randomized migraine studies of galcanezumab

2019· article· en· W2955652411 on OpenAlexaff
Janet H. Ford, David W. Ayer, Qi Zhang, Jeffrey N. Carter, Élizabeth Leroux, Vladimir Skljarevski, Sheena K. Aurora, Antje Tockhorn‐Heidenreich, Richard B. Lipton

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMigrainePlaceboMedicineChronic MigraineRepeated measures designInternal medicinePhysical therapyAnesthesiaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Objective</h3> To evaluate changes from baseline in patient-reported outcomes for measures of functioning and disability among patients with migraine treated with galcanezumab or placebo. <h3>Methods</h3> Patients with episodic migraine (4–14 monthly migraine headache days) were treated with either galcanezumab (Evaluation of LY2951742 in the Prevention of Episodic Migraine [EVOLVE]–1: 120 mg n = 210, 240 mg n = 208; EVOLVE-2: 120 mg n = 226, 240 mg n = 220) or placebo (EVOLVE-1 n = 425; EVOLVE-2 n = 450) during 6 months of treatment. Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire v2.1 (MSQv2.1) measured the effect of migraine on patient functioning (physical and emotional) in 3 domains, and the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) quantified headache-related disability associated with missed or reduced productivity at work or home and social events. Both were collected at baseline and during the treatment period (MSQv2.1 = monthly; MIDAS = months 3 and 6 only). <h3>Results</h3> Differences in MSQv2.1 total score least squares (LS) mean change from baseline (month 4–6) for galcanezumab (120 and 240 mg, respectively) were superior to placebo (EVOLVE-1 = 7.3 and 6.7 [both <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001]; EVOLVE-2 = 8.5 and 7.3 [both <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001]). Differences were similar for all domain scores (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001 for both galcanezumab doses compared with placebo), were observed as early as month 1, and were sustained for 6 months for most domains. Differences of MIDAS LS mean change from baseline (month 6) for galcanezumab (120 and 240 mg, respectively) compared with placebo were: EVOLVE-1 = −6.3 (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and −5.2 (<i>p</i> = 0.002); EVOLVE-2 = −9.2 and −8.2 (both <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). <h3>Conclusions</h3> Patients with episodic migraine treated with galcanezumab reported significant and clinically meaningful improvements in daily functioning and decreased disability compared with patients who received placebo. <h3>Classification of evidence</h3> This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with migraine, galcanezumab (120 mg or 240 mg) given once monthly improved functioning and reduced disability.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations34
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207