ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2023
Using artificial intelligence to identify patients with migraine and associated symptoms and conditions within electronic health records.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world evidence on migraine treatment in routine clinical practice: insights from the Türkiye migraine registry study using artificial intelligence algorithms.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Observational
- Artificial intelligence-assisted neuropharmacology: reshaping drug discovery and translational strategies for neurological diseases.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in migraine: a narrative review on the diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic applications.Oxford open neuroscience · 2026Article
- INSIGHTS Asthma Pragmatic Registry - A Pragmatic Approach to High-Validity Real-World Evidence for Asthma.Pragmatic and observational research · 2025Article
- Application of Artificial Intelligence in the Headache Field.Current pain and headache reports · 2024Review
- Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality in Headache Disorder Diagnosis, Classification, and Management.Current pain and headache reports · 2024Review
- The Ethical Stewardship of Artificial Intelligence in Chronic Pain and Headache: A Narrative Review.Current pain and headache reports · 2024Review
- Development and validation of a self-updating gout register from electronic health records data.RMD open · 2024Article
- Assessing the diagnostic utility of the Gaucher Earlier Diagnosis Consensus (GED-C) scoring system using real-world data.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
- The Clinical Relevance of Artificial Intelligence in Migraine.Brain sciences · 2024Review
- Reviewing the Potential Role of Artificial Intelligence in Delivering Personalized and Interactive Pain Medicine Education for Chronic Pain Patients.Journal of pain research · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReal-world evidence (RWE)-based on information obtained from sources such as electronic health records (EHRs), claims and billing databases, product and disease registries, and personal devices and health applications-is increasingly used to support healthcare decision making. There is variability in the collection of EHR data, which includes "structured data" in predefined fields (e.g., problem list, open claims, medication list, etc.) and "unstructured data" as free text or narrative. Healthcare providers are likely to provide more complete information as free text, but extracting meaning from these fields requires newer technologies and a rigorous methodology to generate higher-quality evidence. Herein, an approach to identify concepts associated with the presence and progression of migraine was developed and validated using the complete patient record in EHR data, including both the structured and unstructured portions.
methods"Traditional RWE" approaches (i.e., capture from structured EHR fields and extraction using structured queries) and "Advanced RWE" approaches (i.e., capture from unstructured EHR data and processing by artificial intelligence [AI] technology, including natural language processing and AI-based inference) were evaluated against a manual chart abstraction reference standard for data collected from a tertiary care setting. The primary endpoint was recall; differences were compared using chi square.
resultsCompared with manual chart abstraction, recall for migraine and headache were 66.6% and 29.6%, respectively, for Traditional RWE, and 96.8% and 92.9% for Advanced RWE; differences were statistically significant (absolute differences, 30.2% and 63.3%; P < 0.001). Recall of 6 migraine-associated symptoms favored Advanced RWE over Traditional RWE to a greater extent (absolute differences, 71.5-88.8%; P < 0.001). The difference between traditional and advanced techniques for recall of migraine medications was less pronounced, approximately 80% for Traditional RWE and ≥ 98% for Advanced RWE (P < 0.001).
conclusionUnstructured EHR data, processed using AI technologies, provides a more credible approach to enable RWE in migraine than using structured EHR and claims data alone. An algorithm was developed that could be used to further study and validate the use of RWE to support diagnosis and management of patients with migraine.
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.