The Comorbid Relationship Between Migraine and Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Population-Based Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Recent studies have indicated a pathophysiologic link between migraine and asthma. This meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively estimate the risk ratio for migraine in asthma as well as that of asthma in migraine based on available evidence. Method: We systematically searched the electronic databases including PubMed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS for population-based studies that measured either the odds or the risk of asthma in subjects with migraine as well as that of migraine in subjects with asthma. The titles and abstracts were screened by two independent reviewers to identify eligible studies, and this was followed by full-text review of the included studies. Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias of included literature. A meta-analysis was conducted with Review Manager 5.3 Software to calculate the odds ratio (OR) for case-control and cross-sectional studies and either relative ratio (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) for cohort studies, and the source of heterogeneity was assessed. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted, and the I 2 test were used to assess the source of heterogeneity. The funnel plot, Galbraith plot, and Egger's test were used to evaluate publication bias. Results: Fifteen published studies covering a total of 1,188,780 individuals were identified. Pooled analysis indicated that migraine was associated with increased odds (OR = 1.54; 95% CI: 1.34~1.77) and risk for asthma (HR = 1.42; 95% CI: 1.26~1.60), and asthma associated with increased odds (OR = 1.45; 95% CI: 1.22~1.72) and risk for migraine (HR = 1.47; 95% CI: 1.41~1.52). Conclusion: Migraine is a potential risk indicator for asthma, and vice versa , asthma is a potential risk indicator for migraine. However, future prospective cohort studies are warranted to provide more evidence concerning the detailed association between migraine and asthma.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".