Cognitive impairment in chronic migraine: a cross-sectional study in a clinic-based sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive impairment has been described in all phases of a migraine attack and interictally. However, the prevalence and phenotype of such impairment in chronic migraine (CM) have not yet been studied. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate both the prevalence of the objective cognitive deficit in patients with CM and the factors underlying its etiology. METHODS: 144 patients with CM and 44 age-matched patients with low-frequency episodic migraine (EM) (a maximum of 4 headache days per month) participated in this study. Neuropsychiatric characteristics were measured with the HADS Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Cognitive function was assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), and the Perceived Deficits Questionnaire (PDQ-20). RESULTS: Compared to EM, CM subjects demonstrated higher subjective and objective cognitive impairment across all tests. CM patients had 4 times higher odds of achieving a RAVLT score in the lower quartile range compared to EM (Odds Ratio [OR] 3.8; 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.5‒9.6; р=0.005). In the MoCA, CM patients demonstrated the most striking impairment in memory/delayed recall (65.3%), attention (46.5%), abstraction (30.6%), and language (27.1%). Chronic headache and level of education, but not gender, depression or anxiety, were independent predictors of cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive impairment is prevalent in the CM population during their mildest possible pain and may be caused by a central sensitization. Timely preventive treatment of EM is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".