Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34435659›Full record

Observational studyHeadache2021

Continuous updating of individual headache forecasting models using Bayesian methods.

Timothy T Houle, Hao Deng, Charles H Tegeler, Dana P Turner

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Headache, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Evaluating Migraine Trigger Surprisal: Associations with Migraine Activity.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Timothy T HouleDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Hao DengDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0331-2427
Charles H TegelerDepartment of Neurology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Dana P TurnerDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Physiological Arousal and HeadacheR01NS065257 · NINDS · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI HOULE, TIMOTHY T · 2009 to 2018
$3.4M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS065257
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo illustrate the benefits of deploying individual headache forecasting models using continuous updating with Bayesian methods.

backgroundThe ability to reliably forecast headache attacks within an individual over time would enhance the study of attacks and allow preemptive treatment. However, deploying a suitable forecasting model in a clinical setting will likely involve several unique challenges related to heterogeneity in the predictor weights, limited or sparse data, and the need for a quick "warm-up." The use of Bayesian methods offers solutions to each of these specific challenges.

methodsThis was a post hoc analysis of a cohort study of individuals with episodic migraine attacks. Individuals completed daily diaries that allowed the estimation of several forecasting models, each using different types of ancillary information incorporated into formal prior probability distributions. An in silico analysis was conducted that mimicked the deployment of these models in a clinical-like setting where the parameters of the models were continuously updated and evaluated each day using root mean square error (RMSE).

resultsIndividuals (N = 95) were followed for 50 days and contributed 3359 days of nonmissing diary data. During the observation period, there were 1293/3359 (38.5%) days with a headache attack. Self-reported baseline headache frequency was associated with the corresponding predicted probability of future attacks, r = 0.15-0.39. At Day 25, the correlation between baseline information and predicted attack likelihood was r = 0.29 (95% CI: 0.09-0.47). Additionally, the use of prior probability distributions for model parameters improved the model fit, especially early in the deployment of the models (e.g., Day 5 RMSE 0.45 vs. 0.43). Models using informative prior probability distributions outperformed the models estimated without this information during the first 42 days of observation, although performance became more similar as more data were collected.

conclusionsThis analysis demonstrates the value of Bayesian methods in using additional available information to improve forecasting model performance, especially early in the deployment of a forecasting model. To obtain the full value of such models or to apply any model in clinical settings, a model with adequate discrimination and calibration will be needed.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalAdultBayes TheoremCohort StudiesData Interpretation, StatisticalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedMigraine DisordersPrognosisBayesianforecastingheadache attackstresstriggers

Identifiers

PMID34435659
PMCPMC8672809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.