MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406313009 · doi:10.1186/s10194-024-01943-8

Aura phenomenon: a proposal for an etiology-based clinical classification

2025· review· en· W4406313009 on OpenAlexaff
Umberto Pensato, Andrew M. Demchuk, Jens P. Dreier, K. C. Brennan, Simona Sacco, Michele Romoli

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Headache and Pain · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersHumanitas Research HospitalMinistero della Salute
KeywordsAuraEtiologyMigraineMigraine with auraTerminologyMedicineFamilial hemiplegic migraineNeurosciencePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The term "aura" refers to a well-defined pattern of usually positive, progressive, and reversible neurological symptoms, with spreading depolarization as the underlying mechanism. While commonly associated with migraine, aura can also occur in other neurological disorders (i.e., cerebrovascular disorders). However, current terminology inadequately describes its different underlying clinical etiologies. MAIN BODY: We propose the following terminology and etiology-based clinical classification for the aura phenomenon: (i) Migrainous Aura (when the etiology is migraine), (ii) Non-migrainous Aura (when there is an alternative etiology), (iii) Aura of uncertain clinical etiology (when etiology is unclear), and (iv) Migrainous Infarction (a typical migrainous aura in a patient with migraine with aura associated with an infarction in a corresponding anatomical brain region). CONCLUSION: This nuanced classification aims to aid in the diagnostic evaluation and phenotyping of aura phenomenon, ultimately improving the diagnosis and management of the different associated neurological conditions. Moreover, it could promote effective communication and translational mechanistic research.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0130.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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