The MIND Study: Design, Feasibility, and Baseline Characteristics of a Smartphone-Based Migraine Cohort
Khorsand, B.; Teichrow, D.; Lipton, R. B.; Ezzati, A.
Show abstract
ObjectiveTo describe the design, feasibility, and baseline characteristics of the Migraine Impact on Neurocognitive Dynamics (MIND) study, a 30-day smartphone-based cohort for high-frequency assessment of cognition and symptoms in adults with migraine. BackgroundCognitive symptoms are an important component of migraine burden, but they are difficult to measure using single-visit testing or retrospective questionnaires. Repeated smartphone-based assessment may better capture real-world variability in cognition and symptoms. MethodsAdults meeting International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria for migraine were enrolled remotely and completed 30 days of once-daily ecological momentary assessments and mobile cognitive tasks delivered through the Mobile Monitoring of Cognitive Change platform. Baseline measures assessed demographics, migraine characteristics, disability, mood, stress, and treatment patterns. Feasibility was evaluated using enrollment, completion, and retention metrics. ResultsA total of 177 participants enrolled (mean age 38.8 {+/-} 11.9 years; 79.7% female), including 80/177 (45.2%) with chronic migraine. Across the 30-day protocol, 3688 daily assessments were completed, representing 70.8% of all possible study days, and 70.6% of participants completed at least 20 days of monitoring. Completion remained above 60% across study days. At baseline, chronic migraine was associated with greater burden than low-frequency and high-frequency episodic migraine, including higher MIDAS scores (98.6 vs. 38.7 and 70.3), more days with concentration difficulty (16.0 vs. 7.9 and 11.5), and more days with functional interference (18.5 vs. 7.6 and 13.0). ConclusionsThe MIND study demonstrates the feasibility of high-frequency smartphone-based assessment of cognition and symptoms in migraine and provides a methodological foundation for future analyses of within-person cognitive and symptom dynamics across the migraine cycle.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- An interdisciplinary outpatient therapy program for children and adolescents with headache - real world data 94%
- Major sex differences in migraine prevalence among occupational categories: a cross-sectional study using UK Biobank 93%
- Cold Receptor TRPM8 as a target for Migraine-associated Pain and Affective Comorbidities 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Prediction of Central Post-Stroke Pain by Quantitative Sensory Testing 90%
- Propranolol reduces Parkinson’s tremor and inhibits tremor-related activity in the motor cortex: a placebo-controlled crossover trial 87%
- Lesions causing Alice in Wonderland Syndrome map to a common brain network linking body and size perception 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- Safe Non-opioid and Non-barbiturate containing Acute Medication Combinations in Headache: An Exhaustive Approach Based on DrugBank Database 91%
- Matrix and Graphical Representation of the Primary Headache Syndromes in the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD3): A Basis for Automated Diagnosis and Analysis of Criteria. 89%
- Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) is common in post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC): Results from a post-COVID-19 multidisciplinary clinic 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- L-arginine and aged garlic extract for the prevention of migraine: a study protocol for a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase-II trial (LARGE trial) 95%
- Audio-Visual Stimulation Therapy for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Sham-Controlled Randomized Clinical Trial 89%
- Pain Reduction by Inducing Sensory-Motor Adaptation in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS PRISMA): Protocol for a Double-blind Randomized Controlled Trial 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.