Prospective memory is dysfunctional in migraine without aura
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionProspective memory is the ability to carry out a delayed intended action, so to maintain and retrieve future plans, goals and activities. Deficits of prospective memory negatively impact on patients and caregivers’ everyday living and determine poor adherence to treatment. Since frontal regions are involved in both event- and time-based prospective memory tasks and are impaired in migraine without aura, defects of prospective memory might occur in migraine without aura patients; until now this issue has not been investigated. The aim of the current study was to explore time- versus event-based prospective memory in migraine without aura.Patients and methodsNinty-one consecutive migraine without aura patients and 84 healthy subjects were enrolled in the study. They underwent a standardized measure of prospective memory evaluating both time-based and event-based prospective memory, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment assessing global cognitive status. Moreover, all participants completed the Beck Depression Inventory-II and a self-administered version of the Apathy Evaluation Scale, to assess severity of depressive symptoms and apathy, respectively.ResultsMigraine without aura and healthy subjects did not differ on demographic aspects (i.e. age, education and gender). However, individuals with migraine without aura demonstrated impaired prospective memory performance compared to healthy subjects, with a greater impairment demonstrated for the time-based tasks. Within the migraine without aura group, no significant association was found between prospective memory performance and clinical scores, apathy, and depression.ConclusionsIndividuals with migraine without aura experience particular difficulty executing a future intention; therefore, migraine without aura is associated with dysfunction of prospective memory.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".