ArticleScientific reports2024
Electroencephalographic signatures of migraine in small prospective and large retrospective cohorts.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 'Man vs. Machine: can ML algorithms diagnose headaches as accurately as clinicians? A systematic review.'Journal of neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Machine Learning Classification of Migraine Using fNIRS During a Postural Task.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Identifying neural oscillation and phase synchronization abnormalities in migraine and their predictive values in transcranial magnetic stimulation.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2026Article
- The Emerging Clinical Relevance of Artificial Intelligence, Data Science, and Wearable Devices in Headache: A Narrative Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Migraine is more than a headache - a radical rethink offers hope to one billion people.Nature · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Migraine is one of the most common neurological disorders in the US. Currently, the diagnosis and management of migraine are based primarily on subjective self-reported measures, which compromises the reliability of clinical diagnosis and the ability to robustly discern candidacy for available therapies and track treatment response. In this study, we used a computational pipeline for the automated, rapid, high-throughput, and objective analysis of encephalography (EEG) data at Cleveland Clinic to identify signatures that correlate with migraine. We performed two independent analyses, a prospective analysis (n = 62 subjects) and a retrospective age-matched analysis on a larger cohort (n = 734) obtained from the sleep registry at Cleveland Clinic. In the prospective analysis, no significant difference between migraine and control groups was detected in the mean power spectral density (PSD) of an all-electrodes montage in the frequency range of 1-32 Hz, whereas a significant PSD increase in single occipital electrodes was found at 12 Hz in migraine patients. We then trained machine learning models on the binary classification of migraine versus control using EEG power features, resulting in high accuracies (82-83%) with occipital electrodes' power at 12 Hz ranking highest in the contribution to the model's performance. Further retrospective analysis also showed a consistent increase in power from occipital electrodes at 12 and 13 Hz in migraine patients. These results demonstrate distinct and localized changes in brain activity measured by EEG that can potentially serve as biomarkers in the diagnosis and personalized therapy for individuals 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.