ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2025
A robust multimodal brain MRI-based diagnostic model for migraine: validation across different migraine phases and longitudinal follow-up data.
Article in The journal of headache and pain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 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
- Network localization of regional intrinsic neural activity alterations in migraine and their neurochemical correlates.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
- A multidisciplinary multicentric approach to the identification of predictive biomarkers of response to erenumab - the protocol of the phase 4, European, open-label controlled trial of the BIOMIGA project.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
- Differential resting-state MEG microstate patterns in migraineurs: a cross-sectional study.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Article
- Decoding chronic pain: the glutamate-GABA tug of war in the cerebral cortex.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Inter-individual variability in symptoms and the dynamic nature of brain pathophysiology present significant challenges in constructing a robust diagnostic model for migraine. In this study, we aimed to integrate different types of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), providing structural and functional information, and develop a robust machine learning model that classifies migraine patients from healthy controls by testing multiple combinations of hyperparameters to ensure stability across different migraine phases and longitudinally repeated data. Specifically, we constructed a diagnostic model to classify patients with episodic migraine from healthy controls, and validated its performance across ictal and interictal phases, as well as in a longitudinal setting. We obtained T1-weighted and resting-state functional MRI data from 50 patients with episodic migraine and 50 age- and sex-matched healthy controls, with follow-up data collected after one year. Morphological features, including cortical thickness, curvature, and sulcal depth, and functional connectivity features, such as low-dimensional representation of functional connectivity (gradient), degree centrality, and betweenness centrality, were utilized. We employed a regularization-based feature selection method combined with a random forest classifier to construct a diagnostic model. By testing the models with varying feature combinations, penalty terms, and spatial granularities within a strict cross-validation framework, we found that the combination of curvature, sulcal depth, cortical thickness, and functional gradient achieved a robust classification performance. The model performance was assessed using the test dataset and achieved 87% accuracy and 0.94 area under the curve (AUC) at distinguishing migraine patients from healthy controls, with 85%, 0.97 and 84%, 0.93 during the interictal and ictal/peri-ictal phases, respectively. When validated using follow-up data, which was not included during model training, the model achieved 91%, 94%, 89% accuracies and 0.96, 0.94, 0.98 AUC for the total, interictal, and ictal/peri-ictal phases, respectively, confirming its robustness. Feature importance and clinical association analyses exhibited that the somatomotor, limbic, and default mode regions could be reliable markers of migraine. Our findings, which demonstrate a robust diagnostic performance using multimodal MRI features and a machine-learning framework, may offer a valuable approach for clinical diagnosis across diverse cohorts and help alleviate the decision-making burden 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.