Resting-state electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography in migraine–a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magnetoencephalography/electroencephalography (M/EEG) can provide insights into migraine pathophysiology and help develop clinically valuable biomarkers. To integrate and summarize the existing evidence on changes in brain function in migraine, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42021272622) of resting-state M/EEG findings in migraine. We included 27 studies after searching MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and EMBASE. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Semi-quantitative analysis was conducted by vote counting, and meta-analyses of M/EEG differences between people with migraine and healthy participants were performed using random-effects models. In people with migraine during the interictal phase, meta-analysis revealed higher power of brain activity at theta frequencies (3-8 Hz) than in healthy participants. Furthermore, we found evidence for lower alpha and beta connectivity in people with migraine in the interictal phase. No associations between M/EEG features and disease severity were observed. Moreover, some evidence for higher delta and beta power in the premonitory compared to the interictal phase was found. Strongest risk of bias of included studies arose from a lack of controlling for comorbidities and non-automatized or non-blinded M/EEG assessments. These findings can guide future M/EEG studies on migraine pathophysiology and brain-based biomarkers, which should consider comorbidities and aim for standardized, collaborative approaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".