ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2024
Migraine aura discrimination using machine learning: an fMRI study during ictal and interictal periods.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Emerging Clinical Relevance of Artificial Intelligence, Data Science, and Wearable Devices in Headache: A Narrative Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- fMRI Insights into Visual Cortex Dysfunction as a Biomarker for Migraine with Aura.Neurology international · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies on migraine with aura are challenging due to the rarity of patients with triggered cases. This study optimized methodologies to explore differences in ictal and interictal spatiotemporal activation patterns based on visual stimuli using fMRI in two patients with unique aura triggers. Both patients underwent separate fMRI sessions during the ictal and interictal periods. The Gaussian Process Classifier (GPC) was used to differentiate these periods by employing a machine learning temporal embedding approach and spatiotemporal activation patterns based on visual stimuli. When restricted to visual and occipital regions, GPC had an improved performance, with accuracy rates for patients A and B of roughly 86-90% and 77-81%, respectively (p < 0.01). The algorithm effectively differentiated visual stimulation and rest periods and identified times when aura symptoms manifested, as evident from the varying predicted probabilities in the GPC models. These findings contribute to our understanding of the role of visual processing and brain activity patterns in migraine with aura and the significance of temporal embedding techniques in examining aura phenomena. This finding has implications for diagnostic tools and therapeutic techniques, especially for patients suffering from aura symptoms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38637358What 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.