MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414031817 · doi:10.1007/s40120-025-00824-9

Investigation of Sensory and Neuropsychological Parameters in Migraine Sufferers: A Cross-Sectional Study with Negative Findings

2025· article· en· W4414031817 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bernhard Taxer, Wanda Lauth, Harry von Piekartz, Eugen Trinka, Stefan Leis

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology and Therapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-sectional studyNeurologyMedicineNeuropsychologyMigraineClinical psychologyPsychiatryAudiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitionPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Migraine headache not only is associated with high levels of suffering but also represents a considerable socioeconomic challenge. It is linked to various psychological and physiological impairments, including sensorimotor and somatosensory dysfunction, like those observed in other persistent pain syndromes. This study aims to determine whether individuals with high-frequency episodic (HFEM) or chronic migraine (CM) exhibit differences in somatosensory perception compared to healthy individuals and to explore potential correlations with neuropsychological features. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, we assessed individuals with HFEM or CM (n = 45) and healthy controls (n = 25) using quantitative sensory testing (QST), conditioned pain modulation testing and neuropsychological questionnaires such as the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). RESULTS: Data from 45 participants (39 females) with HFEM or CM and a healthy control group of 25 individuals (21 female) were analysed. Median (range) number of monthly headache days of was 12.3 (6) in the migraine group. Statistically significant differences were found only in the assessment of central sensitization (p < 0.0010) but not for QST parameters. Correlations with QST parameters were generally weak, only the wind-up ratio (WUR) showing weak to moderate monotonic associations with both emotion- and somatosensory-associated parameters. CONCLUSION: Overall, the results provided no evidence of significant differences between the migraine and healthy control groups. The lack of significant differences might be attributed to methodological limitations. However, the comprehensive and standardized implementation of QST strictly following the protocol of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS), the selection of robust questionnaires, uniform diagnostic criteria and rigorous statistical analysis represent methodological strengths and support the validity of the results. Nevertheless, these findings, which partly contrast with existing literature, may reflect limitations of the sample and methodology and should be interpreted with caution.

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)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology and TherapySame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207