ReviewPharmacotherapy2026
Predicting Pharmacological Treatment Response in Migraine Using AI/ML: A Scoping Review of the Evidence and Future Directions.
Review in Pharmacotherapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The treatment of migraine is hampered by inter-individual variability, leading to an inefficient "trial and error" approach. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) offer a path towards precision medicine by predicting therapeutic outcomes. This scoping review systematically evaluates the evidence for AI and ML models for predicting pharmacologic response in migraine. A systematic search of four databases (PubMed, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Library, and OpenGrey) identified 12 eligible studies using AI/ML to predict acute or prophylactic response to migraine treatment. These studies, which date back to articles published in 2006 and have been increasingly published recently, used a wide range of methods, from classical algorithms like support vector machines to deep learning and probabilistic models. The models primarily utilized clinical phenotyping and neuroimaging data and reported high predictive accuracy for novel biologics (e.g., anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs)) and acute treatments (e.g., nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)). However, our systematic review finds that this apparent success is undermined by critical and pervasive methodological weaknesses. The central finding is that most studies relied solely on internal validation, carrying a high risk of overfitting, with external validation being exceptionally rare. Furthermore, several publications were based on overlapping patient cohorts, and a complete lack of biomarker or genetic data was noted. Consequently, the clinical application of AI and ML is currently stalled. Future progress depends on overcoming the "crisis of generalizability" by mandating external validation, addressing the "data bottleneck" with large, diverse datasets, and expanding data modalities to include "omic" data. These measures are critical to begin to realize the potential of AI and ML to personalize migraine treatment and significantly improve patient outcomes.
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.