ArticleHeadache2025
Flexible modeling of headache frequency fluctuations in migraine with hidden Markov models.
Article in Headache, 2025. 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.
- Use of Non-Pharmacological Approaches for Migraine Treatment: Results from the Migraine in Aotearoa New Zealand Survey.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Flexible modeling of headache frequency fluctuations in migraine with hidden Markov models.Headache · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo explore hidden Markov models (HMMs) as an approach for defining clinically meaningful headache-frequency-based groups in migraine.
backgroundMonthly headache frequency in patients with migraine is known to vary over time. This variation has not been completely characterized and is not well accounted for in the classification of individuals as having chronic or episodic migraine, a diagnosis with potentially significant impacts on the individual. This study investigated variation in reported headache frequency in a migraine population and proposed a model for classifying individuals by frequency while accounting for natural variation.
methodsThe American Registry for Migraine Research (ARMR) was a longitudinal multisite study of United States adults with migraine. Study participants completed quarterly questionnaires and daily headache diaries. A series of HMMs were fit to monthly headache frequency data calculated from the diary data of ARMR.
resultsChanges in monthly headache frequency tended to be small, with 47% of transitions resulting in a change of 0 or 1 day. A substantial portion (24%) of months reflected daily headache with individuals ever reporting daily headache likely to consistently report daily headache. An HMM with four states with mean monthly headache frequency emissions of 3.52 (95% Prediction Interval [PI] 0-8), 10.10 (95% PI 4-17), 20.29 (95% PI 12-28), and constant 28 days/month had the best fit of the models tested. Of sequential month-to-month headache frequency transitions, 12% were across the 15-headache days chronic migraine cutoff. Under the HMM, 38.7% of those transitions involved a change in the HMM state, and the remaining 61.3% of the time, a change in chronic migraine classification was not accompanied by a change in the HMM state.
conclusionA divide between the second and third states of this model aligns most strongly with the current episodic/chronic distinction, although there is a meaningful overlap between the states that supports the need for flexibility. An HMM has appealing properties for classifying individuals according to their headache frequency while accounting for natural variation in frequency. This empirically derived model may provide an informative classification approach that is more stable than the use of a single cutoff value.
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.