Theory of Mind in migraine and medication-overuse headache: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Theory of Mind (ToM) is the ability to predict and anticipate others' behaviors through the mental state attribution process. This study aims to investigate the ToM in patients with medication-overuse headache (MOH) and episodic migraine (EM) and to compare it with healthy controls (HC). Methods This study enrolled patients with MOH, patients with EM, and HC. ToM was assessed through the Theory of Mind Assessment Scale (ThOMAS), which includes four subscales: Scale A, I-Me, Scale B, Other-Self, Scale C, I-Other, and Scale D, Other-Me, through the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test (RMET), which measures complex emotion recognition, and through the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), which measures alexithymia. Concomitant psychiatric disturbances were evaluated through the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and the Dissociative Experiences Scale-II. Results The study involved 21 patients with EM, 22 patients with MOH, and 18 HC. In all the four subscales of the ThOMAS, there was a significant difference between HC, EM, and MOH patients: Scale A ( p = 0.009), Scale B ( p = 0.004), Scale C ( p = 0.039), and Scale D ( p = 0.008). In the RMET, MOH patients had worse performances than EM patients and HC ( p = 0.039). MOH group exhibited higher levels of alexithymia when compared to the HC ( p = 0.033) and higher levels of anxiety than HC ( p = 0.001). Conclusion MOH patients showed a subtle psychopathological pattern characterized by impaired social adaptation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".