Predictors of episodic migraine transformation to chronic migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purposeAn estimated 2.5–3.1% of people with episodic migraine develop chronic migraine in a year. Several risk factors are associated with an increased risk for this transformation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide quantitative and qualitative data on predictors of this transformation.MethodsAn electronic search was conducted for published, prospective, cohort studies that reported risk factors for chronic migraine among people with episodic migraine. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Quality of evidence was determined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. Effect estimates were retrieved and summarized using risk ratios.ResultsOf 5695 identified publications, 11 were eligible for inclusion. The pooled analysis (GRADE system) found “high” evidence for monthly headache day frequency ≥ 10 (risk ratio = 5.95), “moderate” evidence for depression (risk ratio = 1.58), monthly headache day frequency ≥ 5 (risk ratio = 3.18), and annual household income ≥ $50,000 (risk ratio = 0.65) and “very low” evidence for allodynia (risk ratio = 1.40) and medication overuse (risk ratio = 8.82) in predicting progression to chronic migraine.ConclusionsHigh frequency episodic migraine and depression have high quality evidence as predictors of the transformation from episodic migraine to chronic migraine, while annual household income over $50,000 may be protective.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".