ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2024
Altered brainstem-cortex activation and interaction in migraine patients: somatosensory evoked EEG responses with machine learning.
Article in The journal of headache and pain, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 'Man vs. Machine: can ML algorithms diagnose headaches as accurately as clinicians? A systematic review.'Journal of neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Application of machine learning in migraine classification: a call for study design standardization and global collaboration.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Pooled it
- Iterative multiblock framework for high frequency EEG based neurological disorder detection.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Temporal stability and neural complexity in resting-state MEG predict migraine phenotypes.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Article
- The Emerging Clinical Relevance of Artificial Intelligence, Data Science, and Wearable Devices in Headache: A Narrative Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Artificial neural networks applied to somatosensory evoked potentials for migraine classification.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Article
- Generalisation of EEG-Based Pain Biomarker Classification for Predicting Central Neuropathic Pain in Subacute Spinal Cord Injury.Biomedicines · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo gain a comprehensive understanding of the altered sensory processing in patients with migraine, in this study, we developed an electroencephalography (EEG) protocol for examining brainstem and cortical responses to sensory stimulation. Furthermore, machine learning techniques were employed to identify neural signatures from evoked brainstem-cortex activation and their interactions, facilitating the identification of the presence and subtype of migraine.
methodsThis study analysed 1,000-epoch-averaged somatosensory evoked responses from 342 participants, comprising 113 healthy controls (HCs), 106 patients with chronic migraine (CM), and 123 patients with episodic migraine (EM). Activation amplitude and effective connectivity were obtained using weighted minimum norm estimates with spectral Granger causality analysis. This study used support vector machine algorithms to develop classification models; multimodal data (amplitude, connectivity, and scores of psychometric assessments) were applied to assess the reliability and generalisability of the identification results from the classification models.
resultsThe findings revealed that patients with migraine exhibited reduced amplitudes for responses in both the brainstem and cortical regions and increased effective connectivity between these regions in the gamma and high-gamma frequency bands. The classification model with characteristic features performed well in distinguishing patients with CM from HCs, achieving an accuracy of 81.8% and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.86 during training and an accuracy of 76.2% and an AUC of 0.89 during independent testing. Similarly, the model effectively identified patients with EM, with an accuracy of 77.5% and an AUC of 0.84 during training and an accuracy of 87% and an AUC of 0.88 during independent testing. Additionally, the model successfully differentiated patients with CM from patients with EM, with an accuracy of 70.5% and an AUC of 0.73 during training and an accuracy of 72.7% and an AUC of 0.74 during independent testing.
conclusionAltered brainstem-cortex activation and interaction are characteristic of the abnormal sensory processing in migraine. Combining evoked activity analysis with machine learning offers a reliable and generalisable tool for identifying patients with migraine and for assessing the severity of their condition. Thus, this approach is an effective and rapid diagnostic tool for clinicians.
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.