MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403943647 · doi:10.1186/s10194-024-01889-x

Hallmarks of primary headache: part 1 – migraine

2024· review· en· W4403943647 on OpenAlexaff
Alberto Raggi, Matilde Leonardi, Marco A. Arruda, Valeria Caponnetto, Matteo Castaldo, Gianluca Coppola, Adriana Della Pietra, Xiangning Fan, David García‐Azorín, Parisa Gazerani, Lou Grangeon, Licia Grazzi, Fu‐Jung Hsiao, Keiko Ihara, Alejandro Labastida‐Ramírez, Kristin Sophie Lange, Marco Lisicki, Alessia Marcassoli, Danilo Antonio Montisano, Dilara Onan, Agnese Onofri, Lanfranco Pellesi, Mário Fernando Prieto Peres, Igor Petrušić, Bianca Raffaelli, Eloísa Rubio‐Beltrán, Andreas Straube, Sebastian Straube, Tsubasa Takizawa, Claudio Tana, Michela Tinelli, Massimiliano Valeriani, S. Vigneri, Doğa Vurallı, Marta Waliszewska‐Prosół, Wei Wang, Yonggang Wang, William Wells-Gatnik, Tissa Wijeratne, Paolo Martelletti

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Headache and Pain · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceBerlin Institute of HealthUniwersytet Medyczny im. Piastów Slaskich we WroclawiuZhejiang UniversityBeijing Tian Tan Hospital, Capital Medical UniversitySapienza Università di RomaGazi ÜniversitesiMinistero della SaluteCapital Medical UniversitySir Run Run Shaw Hospital
KeywordsMigrainePrimary headacheMedicinePrimary (astronomy)Migraine DisordersPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnesthesiaPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Migraine is a common disabling conditions which, globally, affects 15.2% of the population. It is the second cause of health loss in terms of years lived with disability, the first among women. Despite being so common, it is poorly recognised and too often undertreated. Specialty centres and neurologists with specific expertise on headache disorders have the knowledge to provide specific care: however, those who do not regularly treat patients with migraine will benefit from a synopsis on the most relevant and updated information about this condition. This paper presents a comprehensive view on the hallmarks of migraine, from genetics and diagnostic markers, up to treatments and societal impact, and reports the elements that identify migraine specific features. MAIN RESULTS: The most relevant hallmark of migraine is that it has common and individual features together. Besides the known clinical manifestations, migraine presentation is heterogeneous with regard to frequency of attacks, presence of aura, response to therapy, associated comorbidities or other symptoms, which likely reflect migraine heterogeneous genetic and molecular basis. The amount of therapies for acute and for prophylactic treatment is really wide, and one of the difficulties is with finding the best treatment for the single patient. In addition to this, patients carry out different daily life activities, and might show lifestyle habits which are not entirely adequate to manage migraine day by day. Education will be more and more important as a strategy of brain health promotion, because this will enable reducing the amount of subjects needing specialty care, thus leaving it to those who require it in reason of refractory condition or presence of comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing the hallmarks of migraine and the features of single patients enables prescribing specific pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. Medical research on headaches today particularly suffers from the syndrome of single-disease approach, but it is important to have a cross-sectional and joint vision with other close specialties, in order to treat our patients with a comprehensive approach that a heterogeneous condition like migraine requires.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations172
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Headache and PainSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207