ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Enhancing Migraine Trigger Surprisal Predictions: A Bayesian Approach to Establishing Prospective Expectations.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To extend the application of surprisal theory for predicting migraine attack risk by developing methods to estimate trigger variable likelihood in real time, under conditions of limited personal observation. Background: Prior work has demonstrated that higher surprisal, a measure quantifying the unexpectedness of a trigger exposure, predicts headache onset over 12 to 24 hours. However, these analyses relied on retrospective expectations of trigger exposure formed after extended data collection. To operationalize surprisal prospectively, Bayesian methods could update expectations dynamically over time. Methods: In a prospective daily diary study of individuals with migraine (N = 104), data were collected over 28 days, including stress, sleep, and exercise exposures. Bayesian models were applied to estimate daily expectations for each variable under uninformative and empirical priors derived from the sample. Stress was modeled using a hurdle-Gamma distribution, sleep using a rounded Normal distribution, and exercise using a Bernoulli distribution. Surprisal was calculated based on the predictive distribution at each time point and compared to static empirical surprisal values obtained after full data collection. Results: Dynamic Bayesian surprisal values systematically differed from retrospective empirical estimates, particularly early in the observation period. Divergence was larger and more variable under uninformative priors but attenuated over time. Empirically informed priors produced more stable, lower-bias surprisal trajectories. Substantial individual variability was observed across exposure types, especially for exercise behavior. Conclusions: Prospective surprisal modeling is feasible but highly sensitive to prior specification, especially in sparse data contexts (e.g., a binary exposure). Incorporating empirical or individually informed priors may improve early model calibration, though individual learning remains essential. These methods offer a foundation for real-time headache forecasting and dynamic modeling of brain-environment interactions.
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.