MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391613738 · doi:10.3390/healthcare12040426

Primary Headache Is Related to Reduced Health-Related Quality of Life in Children with Epilepsy

2024· article· en· W4391613738 on OpenAlexaff
Katharina Schiller, Veronika Schiller, Aline Kortas, Gabriele Unterholzner, Sabine Raffler, Mareike Schimmel, Markus Rauchenzauner

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsyPrimary headacheQuality of life (healthcare)Primary (astronomy)MedicinePrimary careHealth related quality of lifePediatricsPsychiatryMigraineInternal medicineFamily medicineNursingDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Headache is a frequent comorbidity in patients with epilepsy. Data are sparse regarding the distribution of headache types in children with epilepsy (CWE). We aimed to assess the prevalence of primary headache types and their influence on health-related quality of life (QoL) in CWE. CWE filled out a validated headache questionnaire to assess migraine (MIG), tension-type headache (TTH), trigeminal–autonomic cephalalgia (TAC), or, if the criteria were not fulfilled, non-classifiable headache (NCH). QoL was measured using both patient and parent versions of a validated questionnaire. Of 119 CWE (59 female; 11.5 ± 3.1 y), headache was found in 46 (38.7%). Sixteen (34.8%) patients showed MIG, 9 (19.6%) patients TTH, and 21 (45.7%) patients described NCH. More girls reported headache (χ2 = 5.4, p = 0.02) when compared to boys. Overall, QoL was reduced in patients with headache from both the patients’ and parents’ points of view (70.8% [39.6; 87.5] vs. 77.0% [46.9; 95.8], p = 0.002; 71,9% [33.3; 87.5] vs. 78,1% [54.2; 95.8], p = 0.003). Headache is common among CWE with MIG as the most prevalent primary headache type and higher rates in female patients. Importantly, patients and their parents perceive a reduced overall QoL when suffering from headache.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcareSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207