Observational studyHeadache2023
Learning headache triggers through experience: A laboratory study.
Observational study in Headache, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Information-Theoretic Trigger Surprisal and Future Headache Activity.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Evaluating Migraine Trigger Surprisal: Associations with Migraine Activity.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Pain medication beliefs in individuals with headache.Headache · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine how individuals may learn headache trigger beliefs through sequential symbolic pairings of trigger candidates and headache attacks.
backgroundLearning from experience may be a major source of information about headache triggers. Little is known about learning-based influences on the establishment of trigger beliefs.
methodsThis cross-sectional, observational study included N = 300 adults with headache who participated in a laboratory computer task. First, participants rated the chances (0%-100%) that encountering specific triggers would lead to experiencing a headache. Then, 30 sequential images with the presence or absence of a common headache trigger were presented alongside images representing the presence or absence of a headache attack. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative association strength rating (0 = no relationship to 10 = perfect relationship) between the trigger and headache using all previous trials.
resultsA total of N = 296 individuals completed 30 trials for each of three triggers, yielding 26,640 total trials for analysis. The median [25th, 75th] association strength ratings for each of the randomly presented headache triggers were 2.2 [0, 3] for the Color Green, 2.7 [0, 5] for Nuts, and 3.9 [0, 8] for Weather Changes. There was a strong association between the "true" cumulative association strength and corresponding ratings. A 1-point increase on the phi scale (i.e., no relationship to perfect relationship) was associated with a 1.20 (95% CI: 0.81 to 1.49, p < 0.0001) point increase in association strength rating. A participant's prior belief about the potency of a trigger affected their perceived rating of the accumulating evidence, accounting for 17% of the total variation.
conclusionIn this laboratory task, individuals appeared to learn trigger-headache associations through repeated exposures to accumulating symbolic evidence. Prior beliefs about the triggers appeared to influence ratings of the strength of relationships between triggers and headache attacks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.