Search

Background: Headache burden is substantial in idiopathic intracranial hypertension. The classification of idiopathic intracranial hypertension headache by the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) is an important tool for research and clinical purposes. Methods: We phenotyped headaches and tested sensitivity and specificity of the ICHD-3 criteria for idiopathic intracranial hypertension headache in a prospective cohort of patients suspected of idiopathic intracranial hypertension at two tertiary headache centers. Results: Sensitivity was 93% and specificity was 100% of ICHD-3 criteria for idiopathic intracranial hypertension-related headache validated in idiopathic intracranial hypertension (n = 140) and patients in whom idiopathic intracranial hypertension was suspected but disproven (n = 103). The phenotype of new/worsened headaches related to idiopathic intracranial hypertension suspicion was equally migraine-like (p = 0.76) and tension-type-like (p = 0.08). Lumbar puncture opening pressure was higher (p < 0.0001) and pulsatile tinnitus more frequent (p < 0.0001) in idiopathic intracranial hypertension patients, but neither improved the applicability of the headache criteria, nor did papilledema. Conclusion: Headache phenotype is not distinct in idiopathic intracranial hypertension. ICHD-3 criteria for idiopathic intracranial hypertension headache are sensitive and specific, but simplicity can be improved without compromising accuracy. We propose that a new or worsened headache temporally related to active idiopathic intracranial hypertension is a sufficient criterion for idiopathic intracranial hypertension headache regardless of headache phenotype or accompanying symptoms, and that elements of idiopathic intracranial hypertension diagnostics (papilledema and opening pressure) be segregated from headache criteria. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04032379 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The diagnosis of headache disorders relies on the correct classification of individual headache attacks. Currently, this is mainly done by clinicians in a clinical setting, which is dependent on subjective self-reported input from patients. Existing classification apps also rely on self-reported information and lack validation. Therefore, the exploratory mBrain study investigates moving to continuous, semi-autonomous and objective follow-up and classification based on both self-reported and objective physiological and contextual data. Methods The data collection set-up of the observational, longitudinal mBrain study involved physiological data from the Empatica E4 wearable, data-driven machine learning (ML) algorithms detecting activity, stress and sleep events from the wearables’ data modalities, and a custom-made application to interact with these events and keep a diary of contextual and headache-specific data. A knowledge-based classification system for individual headache attacks was designed, focusing on migraine, cluster headache (CH) and tension-type headache (TTH) attacks, by using the classification criteria of ICHD-3. To show how headache and physiological data can be linked, a basic knowledge-based system for headache trigger detection is presented. Results In two waves, 14 migraine and 4 CH patients participated (mean duration 22.3 days). 133 headache attacks were registered (98 by migraine, 35 by CH patients). Strictly applying ICHD-3 criteria leads to 8/98 migraine without aura and 0/35 CH classifications. Adapted versions yield 28/98 migraine without aura and 17/35 CH classifications, with 12/18 participants having mostly diagnosis classifications when episodic TTH classifications (57/98 and 32/35) are ignored. Conclusions Strictly applying the ICHD-3 criteria on individual attacks does not yield good classification results. Adapted versions yield better results, with the mostly classified phenotype (migraine without aura vs. CH) matching the diagnosis for 12/18 patients. The absolute number of migraine without aura and CH classifications is, however, rather low. Example cases can be identified where activity and stress events explain patient-reported headache triggers. Continuous improvement of the data collection protocol, ML algorithms, and headache classification criteria (including the investigation of integrating physiological data), will further improve future headache follow-up, classification and trigger detection. Trial registration This trial was retrospectively registered with number NCT04949204 on 24 June 2021 at www.clinicaltrials.gov .

Objective: To assess validity of ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for menstrual migraine. Methods: We performed a longitudinal E-diary study in premenopausal women with migraine. Menstrual migraine diagnosis was self-reported at baseline, and verified according to diary based ICHD-3 criteria and a previous proposed statistical model. Validity of self-reported menstrual migraine was compared to diary based diagnosis and statistical diagnosis. Test-retest reliability and concordance between both methods were determined. Clinical characteristics of perimenstrual and non-perimenstrual migraine attacks were compared in women with and without menstrual migraine. Results: We included 607 women. Both women who did and women who did not self-report to suffer from menstrual migraine fulfilled ICHD-3 criteria in the E-diary in two thirds of cases. Pure menstrual migraine was extremely rare (<1%). Concordance between statistical and diary based diagnosis was minimal (κ = 0.28, 95% CI:0.23–0.33). Women diagnosed with menstrual migraine showed 37–50% longer attack duration and increased triptan intake (OR 1.19–1.22, p < 0.001) during perimenstrual attacks. Conclusion: Self-reported menstrual migraine diagnosis has extremely poor accuracy. Two thirds of women suffer from menstrual migraine, independent of self-reports. Pure menstrual migraine is rare. Women with menstrual migraine have longer attack duration and increased triptan intake during perimenstrual attacks, in contrast to women without menstrual migraine. Prospective headache (E-)diaries are required for a menstrual migraine diagnosis, also in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proper diagnosis is the key to successful management of headache disorders. Separating secondary causes from primary headache disorders is a necessary first step, followed by further refinement within these broader categories. For research into the physiological and pathophysiological underpinnings of headache disorders, distinguishing headache types and subtypes is even more crucial. Thus, classification of headache types is required in clinical work and research in headache medicine. This article will provide an overview of the guiding philosophy behind the International Classification of Headache Disorders, a guide to its use in diagnosing primary headache disorders, and a review of important diagnostic features of the primary headaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The diagnosis of headache disorders relies on the correct classification of individual headache attacks. Currently, this is mainly done by clinicians in a clinical setting, which is dependent on subjective self-reported input from patients. Existing classification apps also rely on self-reported information and lack validation. Therefore, the exploratory mBrain study investigates moving to continuous, semi-autonomous and objective follow-up and classification based on both self-reported and objective physiological and contextual data.Methods: The data collection set-up of the observational, longitudinal mBrain study involved physiological data from the Empatica E4 wearable, data-driven machine learning (ML) algorithms detecting activity, stress and sleep events from the wearables' data modalities, and a custom-made application to interact with these events and keep a diary of contextual and headache-specific data. A knowledge-based classification system for individual headache attacks was designed, focusing on migraine, cluster headache (CH) and tension-type headache (TTH) attacks, by using the classification criteria of ICHD-3. To show how headache and physiological data can be linked, a basic knowledge-based system for headache trigger detection is presented.Results: In two waves, 14 migraine and 4 CH patients participated (mean duration 22.3 days). 133 headache attacks were registered (98 by migraine, 35 by CH patients). Strictly applying ICHD-3 criteria leads to 8/98 migraine without aura and 0/35 CH classifications. Adapted versions yield 28/98 migraine without aura and 17/35 CH classifications, with 12/18 participants having mostly diagnosis classifications when episodic TTH classifications (57/98 and 32/35) are ignored.Conclusions: Strictly applying the ICHD-3 criteria on individual attacks does not yield good classification results. Adapted versions yield better results, with the mostly classified phenotype (migraine without aura vs. CH) matching the diagnosis for 12/18 patients. The absolute number of migraine without aura and CH classifications is, however, rather low. Example cases can be identified where activity and stress events explain patient-reported headache triggers. Continuous improvement of the data collection protocol, ML algorithms, and headache classification criteria (including the investigation of integrating physiological data), will further improve future headache follow-up, classification and trigger detection. Trial registration This trial was retrospectively registered with number NCT04949204 on 24 June 2021 at www.Clinicaltrials: gov . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Methods: In this narrative review, we introduce key artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) concepts, aimed at headache clinicians and researchers. Thereafter, we thoroughly review the use of AI in headache, based on a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, Embase and IEEExplore. Finally, we discuss limitations, as well as ethical and political perspectives., Results: We identified six main research topics. First, natural language processing can be used to effectively extract and systematize unstructured headache research data, such as from electronic health records. Second, the most common application of ML is for classification of headache disorders, typically based on clinical record data, or neuroimaging data, with accuracies ranging from around 60% to well over 90%. Third, ML is used for prediction of headache disease trajectories. Fourth, ML shows promise in forecasting of headaches using self-reported data such as triggers and premonitory symptoms, data from wearable sensors and external data. Fifth and sixth, ML can be used for prediction of treatment responses and inference of treatment effects, respectively, aiming to optimize and individualize headache management., Conclusions: The potential uses of AI and ML in headache are broad, but, at present, many studies suffer from poor reporting and lack out-of-sample evaluation, and most models are not validated in a clinical setting., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsAnker Stubberud has received lecture honoraria from TEVA. AS holds a patent related to Cerebri developed by Nordic Brain Tech AS, an app intervention that includes headache forecasting. In addition, AS may benefit financially from a license agreement between Nordic Brain Tech AS and NTNU. Helge Langseth reports no conflicts of interest. Parashkev Nachev is funded by Wellcome and the NIHR BRC Biomedical Research Centre. He has shareholdings in two university spin-outs, Sonalis and Hologen. Manjit S. Matharu is chair of the medical advisory board of the CSF Leak Association; has served on advisory boards for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Kriya, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Salvia and TEVA; has received payment for educational presentations from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer and TEVA; has received grants from Abbott, Medtronic and Ehlers Danlos Society; and has a patent on system and method for diagnosing and treating headaches (WO2018051103A1, issued). Erling Tronvik has received personal fees for lectures/advisory boards: Novartis, Eli Lilly, Abbvie, TEVA, Roche, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Biogen. Consultant for and owner of stocks and IP in Man & Science. Stocks and IP in Nordic Brain Tech (includes headache forecasting) and Keimon Medical. Non-personal research grants from several sources, including EU, Norwegian Research Council, Dam foundation, KlinBeForsk. Commissioned research (non-personal): Lundbeck, Eli-Lilly.

Background: Diagnosing headache disorders comprises the collection and interpretation of information. This study estimates agreement and bias in the latter. Methods: Physicians and medical students diagnosed eight patients' headaches using the International Classification of Headache Disorders. We calculated Cohen's Kappa for all participants and subgroups (board-certified neurologists, physicians working in a neurology department). Moreover, we asked how sure they felt about their diagnoses. Finally, participants estimated the number of different headache diagnoses a patient receives when consulting many physicians for the same headache and indicated the highest acceptable number. Results: The data of 63 participants entered the analysis, of whom 18 were neurologists (18/63, 28.6%), and 41 were currently working at a neurology clinic (41/63, 66.7%). Cohen's Kappa decreased (0.706, 0.566, and 0.408) with increasing levels of the classification hierarchy. Interrater agreement was highest among neurologists. Physicians not working in a neurology clinic tended to diagnose secondary headaches more often were less confident about their diagnoses. Conclusions: Physicians with less experience in headache disorders struggle more to diagnose headaches than neurologists do; they suspect secondary headaches, disagree, and feel insecure more often. Thus, interpreting a headache history is prone to error and bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This observational study aimed to assess the difference in disability, burden, and sensitization between migraine patients with low-frequency headache attack (1–8 headache days/month), high-frequency headache attack (9–14 headache days/months), and patients with chronic migraine (>14 headache days/months). Migraine patients with or without aura were divided into three groups according to headache frequency (low-frequency episodic migraine; high-frequency episodic migraine; chronic migraine). Questionnaires were used to assess the burden of headache, quality of life, phycological burden, and symptoms related to sensitization (estimated by the Central Sensitization Inventory). Differences among migraine groups were assessed using Chi-Quadro test, ANOVA, or Kruskal–Wallis as appropriate. 136 patients were included (68 low-frequency episodic migraine, 45 high-frequency episodic migraine, 23 chronic migraine). Patients with high frequency episodic migraine and chronic migraine differed from patients with low frequency episodic migraine showing a worse burden of headache (p=0.002; p=0.002), worse level of physical (p=0.001; p<0.001) and mental (p=0.002; p=0.001) quality of life, worse level of depression (p=0.008; p=0.003), and increase presence of symptoms related to sensitization (p<0.001; p=0.003). No differences were found in any variables between patients with high-frequency episodic migraine and patients with chronic migraine (p>0.05). Patients with high-frequency episodic migraine and chronic migraine could be considered in the same segment of the migraine population, with similar degrees of disability and sensitization related symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Medicus (1330-013X) is the property of Pliva Hrvatska d.o.o. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Within‐ and between‐study heterogeneity impede identification of valid primary headache biomarkers. Homogenous subgroup identification and investigation of differential biochemical profiles and networks within and across headache categories, based on statistical techniques, might promote biomarker discovery. When studying common primary headaches with a multifactorial etiology, variability might be captured at different levels (eg, genetics, clinical features, comorbidities, triggers). Moreover, focus on biochemical profiles instead of single compounds is crucial to develop strategies for accurate differential diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nummular headache is a rather rare type, related to primary headaches according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders - III. Many aspects of nummular headache have not been studied, medical practitioners are unfamiliar with the clinical features and approaches to therapy. Statistics of this type of cephalgia in children is unknown. The article analyzes the literature data of recent years related to this problem. The details of the clinical features are considered using a case example.

Migraine is a complex, multifactorial brain disorder, and its presentation, complications, and response to treatment often follow the biopsychosocial model. Therefore, assessment and management include the wider aspects of the child's life within the family, at school, with peers, and in relation to his/her neurologic and emotional development. The diagnosis of headache disorders in children relies heavily on taking a careful clinical history, carrying out an appropriate physical and neurologic examination and a skilled interpretation of the findings. This chapter discusses the peculiarities of migraine in children, the differences in presentation from that in adults, and the skills that are needed in assessing the children and adolescents with headache. There is also a brief review of the epidemiology of headache and migraine in children and adolescents and an introduction of the principles of a comprehensive clinical assessment of the impact of migraine on child's quality of life. Several important elements of the clinical history and the physical and neurologic examination will be illustrated to help in the early detection of red flags that may necessitate further assessment and/or investigations. At the end of the assessment, the clinicians will be able to employ the International Classification of headache Disorders and make the correct diagnosis., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Headache, an almost universal human experience, is one of the most common complaints encountered in medicine and neurology. Described and categorized since antiquity, with the first classification by Aretaeus of Cappadocia, other classifications followed. The evaluation of this condition may be straightforward or challenging, and, though often benign, headache may prove to be an ominous symptom. This review discusses the current diagnosis and classification of headache disorders and principles of management, with a focus on migraine, tension-type headache, trigeminal autonomic cephalgias, and various types of daily headache. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Migraine aura status is a variety of migraine aura with unvalidated research criteria. Aim and methods We conducted a systematic review of published cases and a retrospective analysis of 500 cases of migraine with aura to evaluate the applicability and clinical features of ICHD-III beta criteria, compared to a more liberal definition for its diagnosis: ≥3 aura episodes for up to three consecutive days. Results Many publications under this title correspond to persistent or formerly designated prolonged auras. Nine cases fulfilled ICHD-III beta status criteria. In our series, either 1.7% or 4.2% cases fulfilled ICDH-III beta or our definition, respectively. Regardless of the criteria, aura status patients were older at onset of status than those with typical aura, had a predominance of visual symptoms, normal neuroimaging and no sequelae. Status recurred in a few. Conclusion Both criteria identify a similar population in terms of age, gender, main symptoms, imaging and outcome. Since patients with closely recurring auras might raise the same approach independently of the criteria, the use of more liberal criteria will allow more cases for detailed diagnosis and therapeutic analysis, eventually leading to the identification of subtypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context The classification of headache disorders has improved over the years, but further work is needed to develop and improve headache diagnosis within headache subtypes. The present review is a call for action to implement laboratory tests in the classification and management of primary and some secondary headaches. Background In this narrative review we present and discuss published tests that might be useful in phenotyping and/or diagnosis of long-lasting headache disorders such as migraine, tension-type headache, trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, trigeminal neuralgia and persisting secondary headaches. Aim The palpometer test, quantitative sensory testing, nociceptive blink reflex and autonomic tests may be valuable to phenotype and/or diagnose subforms of migraine, tension-type headache, cluster headache, trigeminal neuralgia and medication-overuse headache. Provocation tests with glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) may be valuable in subclassification of migraine and cluster headache. Lumbar pressure monitoring and optical coherence tomography may valuable tools to diagnose and follow patients with chronic headache and raised intracranial pressure. Finding A number of laboratory tests in headache research are presently available, but have primarily been performed in single research studies or a few studies that differ in methods and patient groups. At present, there is no evidence-based strategy for implementing diagnostic tests, but this could be achieved if well-reputed tertiary headache centers commence developing and implementing laboratory tests in order to improve the classification and treatment of headache patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Migraine aura status is a variety of migraine aura with unvalidated research criteria. Aim and methods: We conducted a systematic review of published cases and a retrospective analysis of 500 cases of migraine with aura to evaluate the applicability and clinical features of ICHD-III beta criteria, compared to a more liberal definition for its diagnosis: ≥3 aura episodes for up to three consecutive days. Results: Many publications under this title correspond to persistent or formerly designated prolonged auras. Nine cases fulfilled ICHD-III beta status criteria. In our series, either 1.7% or 4.2% cases fulfilled ICDH-III beta or our definition, respectively. Regardless of the criteria, aura status patients were older at onset of status than those with typical aura, had a predominance of visual symptoms, normal neuroimaging and no sequelae. Status recurred in a few. Conclusion: Both criteria identify a similar population in terms of age, gender, main symptoms, imaging and outcome. Since patients with closely recurring auras might raise the same approach independently of the criteria, the use of more liberal criteria will allow more cases for detailed diagnosis and therapeutic analysis, eventually leading to the identification of subtypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The criteria for headache attributed to cervical artery dissection have been changed in the new third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-III beta). We have retrospectively investigated 19 patients diagnosed from 2001 to 2006 with cervical artery dissection at onset and followed them up six months after dissection. At dissection onset 17/19 patients were classified as headache probably attributed to vascular disorder at the time of dissection using the ICHD second edition (ICHD-II) criteria. In contrast, 17/19 of patients fulfilled the ICHD-III beta criteria for Headache or facial or neck pain attributed to cervical carotid or vertebral artery dissection or Headache attributed to intracranial arterial dissection. Six months after dissection five of 19 patients still reported persistent headache attributed to dissection. The study demonstrates that the ICHD-III beta criteria for cervical artery dissection are useful for classifying patients at the first encounter. We show for the first time that persistent headache attributed to arterial dissection is frequent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The study aims to compare methods of determining headache directionality (imploding, exploding, and/or ocular headaches) in women with migraine, investigate the concordance between physician assignment and patient self-assignment of pain directionality, and evaluate whether patients assigned their headaches to the same direction when queried using different methods. Directionality of migraine headache pain (imploding, exploding, or ocular) may reflect differences in the underlying pathogenesis of individual migraine attacks among and within individuals. Emerging evidence suggests that directionality of pain in migraine sufferers may predict response to onabotulinumtoxin A. The best method of determining headache directionality in migraine sufferers has not been systematically explored. Methods We conducted a prospective cross-sectional survey study of 198 female patients with migraine presenting to a Women's Health Clinic. Patients determined the directionality (imploding, exploding, and/or ocular) of their own migraine pain by choosing among 3 pictures graphically representing directionality and also by responding to a written question regarding directionality. Clinicians then classified directionality of migraine pain using structured interviews. Concordance between clinician assignment of directionality and patient self-assignment was determined with Kappa coefficients. Results Subjects were females between the ages of 18 and 77 years (mean 48 years). According to patient selection of representative pictures, 62 (31.6%) had imploding headaches with or without ocular pain, 36 (18.4%) had exploding headaches with or without ocular pain, 78 (39.8%) had ocular pain only, and 20 (10.2%) had imploding and exploding headaches with or without ocular pain. Two subjects did not respond. According to patient responses to a written question, 80 (41.0%) had imploding headaches with or without ocular pain, 53 (27.2%) had exploding headaches with or without ocular pain, 46 (23.6%) had ocular pain only, and 16 (8.2%) had imploding and exploding headaches with or without ocular pain. Three subjects did not respond. For physician assignment, 69 (34.9%) subjects had imploding headaches with or without ocular pain, 89 (45%) had exploding headaches with or without ocular pain, 14 (7.1%) had ocular pain only, and 26 (13.1%) had imploding and exploding headaches with or without ocular pain. The concordance ( Kappa coefficient) between physician assignment of headache directionality with patient response to the written question was 0.33 (weak agreement), between physician assignment and patient assignment via selection of representative pictures was 0.35 (weak agreement), and between patient assignment via written question and via selection of representative pictures was 0.35 (weak agreement). Conclusions The assignment of headache directionality varied substantially depending upon the method of determination. The concordance between clinician assignment, patient-self assignment via answering a written question, and patient self-assignment via choosing a representative picture was weak. Improved methods of determining pain directionality are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data-driven machine-learning methods on neuroimaging (e.g. MRI) are of great interest for the investigation and classification of neurological diseases. However, traditional machine learning requires domain knowledge to delineate the brain regions first, followed by feature extraction from the regions. Compared with this semi-automated approach, recently developed deep learning methods have advantages since they do not require such prior knowledge; instead, deep learning methods can automatically find features that differentiate MRIs from different cohorts. In the present study, we developed a deep learning-based classification pipeline distinguishing brain MRIs of individuals with one of three types of headaches [migraine ( n = 95), acute post-traumatic headache ( n = 48) and persistent post-traumatic headache ( n = 49)] from those of healthy controls ( n = 532) and identified the brain regions that most contributed to each classification task. Our pipeline included: (i) data preprocessing; (ii) binary classification of healthy controls versus headache type using a 3D ResNet-18; and (iii) biomarker extraction from the trained 3D ResNet-18. During the classification at the second step of our pipeline, we resolved two common issues in deep learning methods, limited training data and imbalanced samples from different categories, by incorporating a large public data set and resampling among the headache cohorts. Our method achieved the following classification accuracies when tested on independent test sets: (i) migraine versus healthy controls-75% accuracy, 66.7% sensitivity and 83.3% specificity; (2) acute post-traumatic headache versus healthy controls-75% accuracy, 66.7% sensitivity and 83.3% specificity; and (3) persistent post-traumatic headache versus healthy controls-91.7% accuracy, 100% sensitivity and 83.3% specificity. The most significant biomarkers identified by the classifier for migraine were caudate, caudal anterior cingulate, superior frontal, thalamus and ventral diencephalon. For acute post-traumatic headache, lateral occipital, cuneus, lingual, pericalcarine and superior parietal regions were identified as most significant biomarkers. Finally, for persistent post-traumatic headache, the most significant biomarkers were cerebellum, middle temporal, inferior temporal, inferior parietal and superior parietal. In conclusion, our study shows that the deep learning methods can automatically detect aberrations in the brain regions associated with different headache types. It does not require any human knowledge as input which significantly reduces human effort. It uncovers the great potential of deep learning methods for classification and automatic extraction of brain imaging-based biomarkers for these headache types., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain.)

Wielding modern technology in the form of artificial intelligence (AI) or deep learning (DL) can utilize the best possible latest computer application in intricate decision-making and enigmatic problem-solving. It has been recommended in many fields. However, it is a long way from achieving an ambitious genuine intention when it comes to understanding and identifying any headache condition or classification, and using it error-free. No studies hitherto formalized any headache AI models to accurately classify headaches.  A machine's job can be arduous when incorporating an emotional dimension in decision making, re-challenging its own diagnosis by keeping a differential at all times, where even experienced neurologists or headache experts sometimes find it demanding to make a precise analysis and formulate a methodical plan. This could be because of spanning clinical presentation at a given moment of time or a change in clinical pattern over time which apparently could be due to intercrossing multiple pathophysiologies. We did a short literature review on the role of artificial intelligence and machine learning in headache classification. This brings forth a minuscule insight into the vastness of headaches and the perpetual effort and exploration headache may demand from AI when trying to scrutinize its classification. Undoubtedly, AI or DL could better be utilized in identifying the red flags of headache, as it might help our patients at home or the primary care physicians/practicing doctors/non- neurologists in their clinic to triage the headache patients if they need an imperative higher center referral to a neurologist for advanced evaluation. This outlook can limit the burden on a handful of headache specialists by minimizing the referrals to a tertiary care setting., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2022, Daripa et al.)

In the field of primary headaches, we have a very useful classification tool for the clinical characterization of individual attacks, but we lack a classification tool for the characterization of primary headache patients. Just because the reasons for this lack have been partially overcome by the knowledge that has been gained in the meantime and because clinicians and researchers are increasingly pressed to find new and reliable ways to manage certain primary headache forms, including so-called chronic migraine, we now have an imperative commitment to provide a syndrome classification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tension-type headache (TTH) is the most common form of headache in the general population. Diagnosis of TTH is based merely on clinical features and on careful exclusion of all possible causes of headache. Most of the headaches that present in the context of medical disorders (e.g., hypothyroidism, sleep disorders, and hypertensive crisis) have clinical features overlapping with those of TTH; medical history and specific features of the systemic disorder are usually the clues to establish a correct diagnosis. Some medical disorders may worsen a preexisting TTH, and is also possible the comorbidity of TTH with psychiatric disorders and fibromyalgia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Certain miscellaneous idiopathic headache disorders, which are regarded as entities, are grouped in chapter 4 of the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Recent epidemiological research suggests that these headache disorders are underdiagnosed. To give expert recommendations for the different drug and non-drug treatment procedures of these different headache disorders based on a literature search and on consensus of an expert panel. All available medical reference systems were screened for all kinds of clinical studies on these headache disorders. The findings in these studies were evaluated according to the recommendations of the EFNS resulting in level A, B or C recommendations and good practice points. For all headache disorders, acute and prophylactic drug treatment is recommended based on case series and on expert consensus. Furthermore, recommendations for the differential diagnoses are given because these headache disorders can also present with a symptomatic form. The most effective drug for the majority of these headache disorders is indomethacin, mostly applied as long-term or short-term prophylaxis. Click for the corresponding questions to this CME article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The analysis of case series of new daily persistent headache (NDPH) reported so far in the literature and the clinical evaluation of affected patients seen at headache clinics suggest that the current International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-II) diagnostic criteria for NDPH are not adequate. In particular, in several instances headache features are not consistent with those of tension-type headache, as the ICHD-II expects. Before making a diagnosis of primary NDPH, it is imperative to rule out that it may be due to any underlying systemic disease. Just as importantly, the presence of psychiatric comorbidity and the possible role played by stressful life factors in triggering NDPH onset should also be searched for. Probably, it will only be through some future improvement in the classification of headache attributed to psychiatric disorder (chapter 12 of the ICHD-II) on the one hand, and through a careful psychological evaluation of patients currently diagnosed as NDPH sufferers on the other, that we will finally know whether primary NDPH actually exists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Classification of Headache Disorders does not separate the moderate from severe/very severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), since they are all defined by Glasgow coma scale (GCS) < 13. The distinction between the severe and very severe TBI (GCS < 8) should be made upon coma duration that in the latter may be longer than 15 days up to months in the case of vegetative state. Post-traumatic amnesia duration may double the coma duration itself. Therefore, the 3-month parameter proposed to define the occurrence or resolution of post-traumatic headache (PTH) appears inadequate. Following TBI, neuropathic pain, central pain, thalamic pain, combined pain are all possible and they call for proper pharmacological approaches. One more reason for having difficulties in obtaining information about headache in the early phase after regaining consciousness is the presence of concomitant medications that may affect pain perception. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) develops days or weeks after stress and tends to improve or disappear within 3 months after exposure; interestingly, this spontaneous timing resembles that of PTH. In our experience the number of TBI patients with PTH at 1-year follow-up is lower in those with longer coma duration and more severe TBI. Cognitive functioning evaluated after at least 12 months from TBI, showed mild or no impairment in these patients with severe TBI and PTH, whereas they have psychopathological changes, namely anxiety and depression. The majority of patients with PTH after severe/very severe TBI had skull fractures or dural lacerations and paroxystic EEG abnormalities. The combination of psychological changes (depression and anxiety) and organic features (skull fractures, dural lacerations, epileptic EEG abnormalities) in PTH may be inversely correlated with the severity of TBI, with prevalence of psychological disturbances in mild TBI and of organic lesions in severe TBI. On the other hand, only in severe TBI patients with good cognitive recovery the influence of the psychopathological disorders may play a role. In fact, the affective pain perception is probably related to the integrity of cognitive functions as in mild TBI and in severe TBI with good cognitive outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigated the consistency between the headache diagnosis based on medical history and three treated headache episodes diagnosed based on a diary. In a randomized double-blind study including individuals with either migraine or tension-type headache (TTH) we showed significant superiority of the fixed combination of acetylsalicylic acid + paracetamol + caffeine over the combination without caffeine, the single preparations, and placebo in the treatment of headache. A neurologist performed a classification of the usual headache episodes and each of the three treated ones in a blinded fashion based on a structured questionnaire. This was done for the 1734 patients included in the efficacy analysis who usually treated their episodic TTH or migraine attacks with non-prescription analgesics. The overall percentage of patients with migraine and TTH remained relatively stable. The treated headache episodes were between 75 and 77% migraine, 18–20% were TTH and 5–7% could not be classified. We observed some shift in headache type within patients from prior history and in treated attacks. In 60% of patients all three treated episodes were of the type initially diagnosed by the neurologist by history (56% migraine and 4% episodic TTH). Of those with an initial diagnosis of migraine, 24% had at least one attack meeting criteria for TTH. Of patients with an initial diagnosis of TTH, 54% had at least one attack meeting the diagnostic criteria for migraine. Our results demonstrate that an initial headache diagnosis does not accurately predict the headache type treated in a randomized trial. Symptom features of treated headaches should be captured to ensure that the attack is of the type targeted by the clinical trial. The International Headache Society Guidelines for controlled clinical trials should be updated accordingly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The classification subcommittee of the International Headache Society (IHS) has recently suggested revised criteria for medication overuse headache (MOH) and chronic migraine (CM). We field tested these revised criteria by applying them to the headache population at the Danish Headache Centre and compared the results with those using the current criteria. For CM we also tested two alternative criteria, one requiring ≥ 4 migraine days/month and ≥ 15 headache days/month, the second requiring ≥ 15 headache days/month and ≥ 50% migraine days. We included 969 patients with migraine or tension-type headache (TTH) among 1326 patients treated and dismissed in a 2-year period. Two hundred and eighty-five patients (30%) had TTH, 265 (27%) had migraine and 419 (43%) had mixed migraine and TTH. The current criteria for MOH classified 86 patients (9%) as MOH, 98 (10%) as probable MOH and 785 (81%) as not having MOH after a 2-month drug-free period. Using the appendix criteria, 284 patients (29%) were now classified as MOH, no patients as probable MOH and 685 (71%) as not having MOH. For CM only 16 patients (3%) fulfilled the current diagnostic criteria. This increased to 42 patients (7%) when we applied the appendix criteria. Using the less restrictive criteria of ≥ 4 migraine days and ≥ 15 headache days, 88 patients (14%) had CM, whereas the more restrictive criteria of ≥ 15 headache days and ≥ 50% migraine days resulted in 24 patients (4%) with CM. Our data suggest that the IHS has succeeded in choosing new criteria for CM which are neither too strict, nor too loose. For MOH, a shift to the appendix criteria will increase the number of MOH patients, but take into account the possibility of permanent changes in pain perception due to medication overuse and the possibility of a renewed effect of prophylactic drugs due to medication withdrawal. We therefore recommend the implementation of the appendix criteria for both MOH and CM into the main body of the International Classification of Headache Disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tension-type headache (TTH) is the most common headache encountered, with most people experiencing TTH at some time in their lives. Diagnostic criteria are somewhat vague and nonspecific, with TTH mainly defined by the absence of associated migrainous features. Generally, TTH does not cause impairment, and sufferers can go about their daily lives. TTH can be divided into episodic and chronic, with the chronic variety being much more likely to come to medical attention. Pathophysiology is still largely unknown, and TTH is associated with a greater chance of comorbid anxiety disorders and depression. Treatment involves patient education and consideration of medication and nonmedication options. The mainstays of treatment are the intermittent use of simple analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications. The most commonly used prophylactic options are the tricyclic antidepressants. Relaxation therapy and biofeedback are clearly beneficial as well. The practitioner is cautioned that apparent TTH may mimic secondary headache disorders hence one must be cautious with the diagnosis, especially in older individuals and new onset headache. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Copyright of Der Schmerz is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The objective of this study was to evaluate how the criteria of the second edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-II) and the revised criteria fit a sample of patients with chronic daily headache (CDH). One hundred and five patients with CDH in a tertiary headache centre were included. Headache was assessed using a semi-structured interview. Patients were classified according to the ICHD-II and to the new appendix criteria of the ICHD. Using the ICHDII, 91% of patients received a combination of diagnoses and 76% received only a probable diagnosis: 47% had probable chronic migraine (CM) with probable medication overuse headache (MOH), 28% had probable chronic tension-type headache (CTTH) with probable MOH, 20% had CTTH and 3.8% had CM. Using the new appendix criteria, 88.5% of patients required one diagnosis. Seventy-six percent of patients were classified as MOH, 17% had CTTH and 6.7% had CM. The classification of CDH remains controversial. Alternative criteria for CM with and without medication overuse are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Retinal migraine is usually characterized by attacks of fully reversible monocular visual loss associated with migraine headache. Herein we summarize the clinical features and prognosis of 46 patients (six new cases and 40 from the literature) with retinal migraine based upon the International Classification of Headache Disorders-2 (ICHD-2) criteria. In our review, retinal migraine is most common in women in the second to third decade of life. Contrary to ICHD-2 criteria, most have a history of migraine with aura. In the typical attack monocular visual features consist of partial or complete visual loss lasting <1 h, ipsilateral to the headache. Nearly half of reported cases with recurrent transient monocular visual loss subsequently experienced permanent monocular visual loss. Although the ICHD-2 diagnostic criteria for retinal migraine require reversible visual loss, our findings suggest that irreversible visual loss is part of the retinal migraine spectrum, perhaps representing an ocular form of migrainous infarction. Based on this observation, the authors recommend migraine prophylactic treatment in an attempt to prevent permanent visual loss, even if attacks are infrequent. We also propose a revision to the ICHD-2 diagnostic criteria for retinal migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Der Schmerz is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

We applied the second edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-II) in 417 children (age range, 2–12 years) with chronic headaches attending a pediatric headache clinic. The initial diagnosis was made according to the ICHD-II while the final diagnosis was, based on the longitudinal intuitive clinical diagnosis (LICD), deemed to be the gold standard. The diagnosis of migraine without aura had a sensitivity of 52%, a specificity of 100% and a positive predictive value of 100%; for the diagnosis of migraine (at the one-digit level) these values were 87%, 100% and 100%, respectively. The ICHD-II criteria for migraine without aura have high specificity but low sensitivity in childhood, even considering the minimal duration of the attacks to be 1 hour. Other factors, such as the existence of subgroup 2.4 (probable tension-type headache), are responsible for the low sensitivity of ICHD-II criteria for the diagnosis of migraine without aura in patients of this age group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A comparison has been made between the cervicogenic headache criteria in the new IHS classification of headaches (3rd edition- beta version) and The Cervicogenic Headache International Study Group’s (GHISG) criteria from 1998. In a more recent version, the CHISG criteria consist of 7 different items. While “core cases” of cervicogenic headache (CEH) usually fulfill all 7 criteria, the IHS classification - 3rd edition beta version- fulfills only 3 criteria. Although the new three beta version represents an improvement from the previous one, it does not quite seem to live up to the expectations for a diagnostic system for routine, clinical use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Migraine neither presents with a definitive single symptom nor has a distinct biomarker; thus, its diagnosis is based on combinations of typical symptoms. We aimed to identify natural subgroups of migraine based on symptoms listed in the diagnostic criteria of the third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Latent class analysis (LCA) was applied to the data of the Korean Sleep-Headache Study, a nationwide population-based survey. We selected a three-class model based on Akaike and Bayesian information criteria and characterized the three identified classes as "mild and low frequency," "photophobia and phonophobia," and "severe and high frequency." In total, 52.0% (65/125) of the participants were classified as "mild and low frequency," showing the highest frequency of mild headache intensity but the lowest overall headache frequency. Meanwhile, "photophobia and phonophobia" involved 33.6% (42/125) of the participants, who showed the highest frequency of photophobia and phonophobia. Finally, "severe and high frequency" included 14.4% (18/125) of the participants, and they presented the highest frequency of severe headache intensity and highest headache frequency. In conclusion, LCA is useful for analyzing the heterogeneity of migraine symptoms and identifying migraine subtypes. This approach may improve our understanding of the clinical characterization of migraine., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Hemicrania continua (HC) was described and coined in 1984 by Sjaastad and Spierings. Later cases, carrying this appellation, should conform to the original description. The proposed classification criteria (ICHD 3rd edition beta version) for HC focus e.g. on localized, autonomic and “vascular” features. Such features do, however, not belong to the core symptomatology of HC and should accordingly be removed. The genuine, original HC will then re-appear. The headache that the new criteria refer to, has in an unfair and unjustified manner been given the designation HC. A revision of the proposed criteria seems mandatory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health care providers spend a lot of time with headache patients, where there is worry over secondary causes for headache. But the great majority of time is spent managing patients with primary headache; that, is dysfunction of the pain system in the head itself, such as migraine, and all its presentations. The release of the International Classification of Headache Disorders in 1988 (updated in 2004) was a major advance in headache medicine and neurology, fostering an enormous increase in clinical study, from which treatment decisions are now made and patients benefit. It is worthwhile for pain medicine practitioners to have some familiarity with headache classification and in particular with the clinical criteria for the diagnosis of various primary headache disorders. It must be appreciated that the criteria being more suited for research purposes are relatively strict and the license of clinical practice is less so. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

A 21-year-old Caucasian male presented to an oral medicine clinic with bilateral nuchal to frontal headache that was associated with burning eyes and lacrimation. Following a string of previous consultations with a variety of specialists, no diagnosis had been made. Treatment was carried out empirically, with the best improvement experienced when the patient was put on a combination of gabapentin and dothiepin treatment. This case highlights the importance of multidisciplinary management of headaches, as well as constant revision of the International Classification of Headache Disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Migraine occurrence is strongly influenced by the hormonal fluctuations of the female reproductive cycle; at least 60% of women affected by migraine relate the periodicity of their attacks to the menstrual cycle. The so-called menstrual migraine, which occurs immediately before, during or at the end of the menstrual flow, has been a largely undefined condition, including some clinical subtypes which are not well defined. In the last edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-II), menstrual migraine gained new attention in the Appendix, where three clinical patterns were pointed out: pure menstrual migraine without aura; menstrually related migraine without aura and non-menstrual migraine without aura. Menstrual migraine attacks show severe intensity, long duration (lasting even more than 72 h), marked unresponsiveness to pharmacological treatments, and present higher recurrence rate and work-related disability than non-menstrual attacks. The pharmacological treatment of menstrual migraine can require specific cyclic prophylactic approaches (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, coxibs, magnesium, long half-life triptans or oestrogen supplements in various formulations), but usually the low frequency of attacks suggests a first approach with specific symptomatic drugs. Preference should be given to triptans, due to their specificity in controlling migraine pain and its accompanying symptomatology; among them, in particular for sumatriptan, many specific studies proved a real effectiveness in the management of acute menstrual migraine attack. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Classification of Headache Disorders 2nd Edition (ICHD-II), published in 2004, marks an unquestionable progress from the preceding 1988 edition, but the in-depth analysis it offers is not immune from drawbacks and shortcomings. First of all, it is still basically a classification of attacks and not of syndromes. For the migraine group, while the revised classification more accurately characterises migraine with aura, it fails to provide a sufficiently structured description of those forms of migraine without aura that over the years evolve to so-called daily chronic forms. These forms are not adequately recognised as chronic migraine, which ICHD-II includes among the complications of migraine. The inclusion of short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing (SUNCT) in the cluster headache group is bound to generate some perplexity, while the recognition of new daily persistent headache (NDPH) included in the group of other primary headaches as a separate clinical entity appears somewhat premature. Doubts are also raised by the actual existence of triptan-overuse headache, which ICHD-II includes in Group 8 among medication-overuse headaches. Finally, the addition of headache attributed to psychiatric disorder, which is certainly a good option in perspective, is not yet supported by an adequate systematisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Persistent post-traumatic headache most commonly has symptoms that overlap those of migraine. In some cases, it can be clinically difficult to differentiate persistent post-traumatic headache with a migraine phenotype from migraine. The objective of this study was to develop a classification model based on questionnaire data and structural neuroimaging data that distinguishes individuals with migraine from those with persistent post-traumatic headache., Methods: Questionnaires assessing headache characteristics, sensory hypersensitivities, cognitive functioning, and mood, as well as T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion tensor data from 34 patients with migraine and 48 patients with persistent post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury were included for analysis. The majority of patients with persistent post-traumatic headache had a migraine/probable migraine phenotype (77%). A machine-learning leave-one-out cross-validation algorithm determined the average accuracy for distinguishing individual migraine patients from individual patients with persistent post-traumatic headache., Results: Based on questionnaire data alone, the average classification accuracy for determining whether an individual person had migraine or persistent post-traumatic headache was 71.9%. Adding imaging data features to the model improved the classification accuracy to 78%, including an average accuracy of 97.1% for identifying individual migraine patients and an average accuracy of 64.6% for identifying individual patients with persistent post-traumatic headache. The most important clinical features that contributed to the classification accuracy included questions related to anxiety and decision making. Cortical brain features and fibertract data from the following regions or tracts most contributed to the classification accuracy: Bilateral superior temporal, inferior parietal and posterior cingulate; right lateral occipital, uncinate, and superior longitudinal fasciculus. A post-hoc analysis showed that compared to incorrectly classified persistent post-traumatic headache patients, those who were correctly classified as having persistent post-traumatic headache had more severe physical, autonomic, anxiety and depression symptoms, were more likely to have post-traumatic stress disorder, and were more likely to have had mild traumatic brain injury attributed to blasts., Discussion: A classification model that included a combination of questionnaire data and structural imaging parameters classified individual patients as having migraine versus persistent post-traumatic headache with good accuracy. The most important clinical measures that contributed to the classification accuracy included questions on mood. Regional brain structures and fibertracts that play roles in pain processing and pain integration were important brain features that contributed to the classification accuracy. The lower classification accuracy for patients with persistent post-traumatic headache compared to migraine may be related to greater heterogeneity of patients in the persistent post-traumatic headache cohort regarding their traumatic brain injury mechanisms, and physical, emotional, and cognitive symptoms.