MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387356818 · doi:10.1111/head.14632

Migraine and air pollution: A systematic review

2023· review· en· W4387356818 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Portt, Christa Orchard, Hong Chen, Erjia Ge, Christine Lay, Peter Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueHeadache The Journal of Head and Face Pain · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalToronto Public HealthInstitute for Work & HealthHealth CanadaUniversity of TorontoInstitute of Population and Public HealthPublic Health Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAir pollutionEnvironmental healthMigraineMedicinePollutantPollutionEnvironmental scienceChemistryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective To systematically synthesize evidence from a broad range of studies on the association between air pollution and migraine. Background Air pollution is a ubiquitous exposure that may trigger migraine attacks. There has been no systematic review of this possible association. Methods We searched for empirical studies assessing outdoor air pollution and any quantified migraine outcomes. We included short‐ and long‐term studies with quantified air pollution exposures. We excluded studies of indoor air pollution, perfume, or tobacco smoke. We assessed the risk of bias with the World Health Organization's bias assessment instrument for air quality guidelines. Results The final review included 12 studies with over 4,000,000 participants. Designs included case‐crossover, case–control, time series, and non‐randomized pre–post intervention. Outcomes included migraine‐related diagnoses, diary records, medical visits, and prescriptions. Rather than pooling the wide variety of exposures and outcomes into a meta‐analysis, we tabulated the results. Point estimates above 1.00 reflected associations of increased risk. In single‐pollutant models, the percent of point estimates above 1.00 were carbon monoxide 5/5 (100%), nitrogen dioxide 10/13 (78%), ozone 7/8 (88%), PM 2.5 13/15 (87%), PM 10 2/2 (100%), black carbon 0/1 (0%), methane 4/6 (75%), sulfur dioxide 3/5 (60%), industrial toxic waste 1/1 (100%), and proximity to oil and gas wells 6/13 (46%). In two‐pollutant models, 16/17 (94%) of associations with nitrogen dioxide were above 1.00; however, more than 75% of the confidence intervals included the null value. Most studies had low to moderate risks of bias. Where differences were observed, stronger quality articles generally reported weaker associations. Conclusions Balancing the generally strong methodologies with the small number of studies, point estimates were mainly above 1.00 for associations of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and particulate matter with migraine. These results were most consistent for nitrogen dioxide.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeadache The Journal of Head and Face PainSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207