Effects of migraine in cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundMigraine is among the 3 most burdensome neurological disorders in the US in terms of absolute number of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from 1990 to 2017, behind just stroke and Alzheimer disease and other dementias. Migraine is characterized as a type of unilateral primary headache marked by a series of neurological and vascular alterations, which can occur episodically or chronically and course with intermittent attacks of intense or moderate headache. Moreover, cognitive dysfunctions are interim and disabling components of this disorder and may be related to the brain processes underlying the pathophysiology. ObjectiveExamine the effects of migraine in the cognitive functions, such as language function, visuospatial function, attention, executive function and memory, of adults between 19 and 45 years old. MethodThis study consists in a narrative review of articles published in the last 5 years on MEDLINE database searched through PubMed. The articles were found using the following MESHs: Migraine and Cognition. ResultsWe utilized 3 studies that approached cognitive impairment in migraine attacks and interictally. In a clinical trial, 144 pacients with chronic migraine (CM) and 44 age-matched patients with episodic migraine (EM) (a maximum of 4 headache days per month) were compared by cognitive assesments. In the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), CM patients demonstrated the most striking impairment in memory/delayed recall (65.3%), attention (46.5%), abstraction (30.6%), and language (27.1%). (To see the complete abstract, please, check out the PDF).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".