Additional file 1 of The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 1: Supplement 1. Search strategy. Supplement 2. Risk of bias criteria. Supplement 3. Sensitivity analysis restricted to recommended therapeutic doses of drugs. Supplement 4. Table of trial characteristics. Supplement 5. Risk of bias judgements for mean monthly migraine days. Supplement 6. Risk of bias judgements for adverse events leading to discontinuation. Supplement 7. Comparisons and GRADE ratings for network meta-analysis of 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days. Supplement 8. Pairwise meta-analyses for 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days. Supplement 9. Node split plots for 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days. Supplement 10. Secondary analysis for 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days. Supplement 11. Secondary analysis for 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days. Supplement 12. Secondary analysis for 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days. Supplement 13. Secondary analysis comparing the effects of telcagepant with other gepants. Supplement 14. Subgroup analyses for 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days. Supplement 15. Network diagram for monthly migraine days. Supplement 16. Comparisons and GRADE ratings for network meta-analysis of monthly migraine days. Supplement 17. Pairwise meta-analyses for monthly migraine days. Supplement 18. Node split plots for monthly migraine days. Supplement 19. Network diagram for adverse events leading to discontinuation. Supplement 20. Comparisons and GRADE ratings for network meta-analysis of adverse events leading to discontinuation. Supplement 21. Pairwise meta-analyses for adverse events leading to discontinuation. Supplement 22. Node split plots for adverse events leading to discontinuation. Supplement 23. Secondary analysis for adverse events leading to discontinuation. Supplement 24. Secondary analysis for adverse events leading to discontinuation. Supplement 25. Secondary analysis for adverse events leading to discontinuation. Supplement 26. Secondary analysis comparing the effects of telcagepant with other gepnts. Supplement 27. Subgroup analyses for adverse events leading to discontinuation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.816 | 0.037 |
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".