Understanding Pediatric Patient's Perspective on Neurostimulation (Cefaly®™) for Migraine Treatment: A Focus Group Discussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Migraines are highly prevalent among children and adolescents, leading to significant disability. External trigeminal nerve stimulation (Cefaly®) is an emerging alternative treatment for migraine. These non-invasive wearable devices deliver electrical impulses through the skin to reduce pain transmission. Cefaly® has been government-approved for use in adults but has not been formally studied in pediatric-aged populations. We conducted a focus group with pediatric patients (aged 16-17) and a patient partner (aged 18) diagnosed with chronic migraine to investigate adolescent perspectives on the Cefaly® device. Involving adolescents ahead of a clinical trial is critical for understanding whether the Cefaly® device can be integrated into patients' lives and have a meaningful impact in real-world contexts for pain management. Methods: Participants partook in a 65-minute virtual semi-structured focus group discussion where they were asked open-ended questions regarding their experiences living with chronic migraine and their impressions of the Cefaly® device and barriers to use. Results: Participants were keen to try Cefaly® but felt it was best suited for home use due to the device's appearance combined with the length of time required per session. Participants described Cefaly® as most helpful as an adjunct for their existing therapies. The device's portability was regarded as advantageous. Participants especially expressed a favourable perception towards the non-invasive nature of Cefaly® and minimal side effects compared to medications and injection-based treatment options. Conclusion: Adolescents reported a desire to try Cefaly® for treating their chronic migraines. Clinical studies are needed to validate the efficacy of Cefaly® for pediatric populations.
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 | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".