MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307322184 · doi:10.7573/dic.2022-3-5

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists for the acute treatment of migraines in adults

2022· review· en· W4307322184 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eric Ocheretyaner, Maria Kofman, Elaena Quattrocchi

Bibliographic record

VenueDrugs in Context · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTriptansPhonophobiaMigrainePhotophobiaCalcitonin gene-related peptideMigraine treatmentNauseaHeadachesVomitingAnesthesiaAcetaminophenPharmacologyInternal medicinePsychiatryNeuropeptideSurgeryAuraReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Migraine headaches are widespread, debilitating and considered a main cause of disability worldwide. Symptoms of migraines include unilateral, pulsating pain that can last for hours to days, frequently associated with photophobia and phonophobia, nausea, or vomiting, and often aggravated by physical activity. The Canadian Headache Society and American Headache Society guidelines suggest strong evidence of the efficacy of triptans, acetaminophen, aspirin, diclofenac sodium, naproxen and ibuprofen for the acute treatment of migraines. The use of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists for the treatment and prevention of migraines has been gaining utilization since the approval of the first agent in this class in 2018. There are increasing available options for the acute treatment of migraines. The purpose of this article is to provide a narrative review of the pharmacological and clinical characteristics of ubrogepant and rimegepant and to discuss their implications for use.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrugs in ContextSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207