ArticleAtencion primaria2026
[Development and validation of Cefalytics: an artificial intelligence-based application for the rapid diagnosis of primary headaches].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo design and validate a Spanish-language artificial intelligence-based application to support the diagnosis of primary headaches by non-expert physicians.
designRetrospective observational study for diagnostic development and validation based on clinical records.
settingNeurology outpatient clinics receiving patients referred from primary care (level 2 headache care).
participantsA total of 1,029 adult patients with a diagnosis of 17 types of primary headache confirmed by an expert neurologist according to the criteria of the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD-3), treated at two hospital centers between 2022 and 2024 were included.
main outcome measuresSensitivity, specificity, F1-score and accuracy of the rule-based diagnostic algorithm and the supervised learning model.
resultsThe application integrates a structured clinical questionnaire that includes most primary headache diagnoses defined in the ICHD-3. The rule-based algorithm achieved a sensitivity of 89.8% (95% CI: 87.9-91.5), specificity of 99.4% (95% CI: 99.2-99.5), F1-score of 91.8% (95% CI: 90.3-93.1), and accuracy of 93.3% (95% CI: 91.5-94.8). The supervised learning model showed a sensitivity of 88.1% (95% CI: 84.0-91.8), specificity of 99.1% (95% CI: 98.6-99.5), F1-score of 88.5% (95% CI: 84.6-92.0), and accuracy of 85.5% (95% CI: 79.3-91.4).
conclusionsCefalytics (https://cefalytics.com/) shows high diagnostic performance and may represent a useful support tool for non-expert physicians, particularly in primary care, facilitating greater diagnostic accuracy and earlier therapeutic optimization. These results require external validation in an independent cohort within this setting.
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.