This prospective cohort study was conducted at two academic medical centers in the United States (Massachusetts General Hospital and Wake Forest Health Sciences). The population included 230 adults with recurrent migraine or tension-type headache, followed for 8 weeks. The intervention delivered individualized probabilistic migraine forecasts (HAPRED-I and HAPRED-II models) via electronic diaries, compared to a static migraine forecasting model (HAPRED-I).
The primary outcome was the occurrence of a headache attack within 24 hours following each evening diary entry. For the static HAPRED-I model, discrimination was modest with an AUC of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.57-0.61), and calibration was poor, with predicted probabilities consistently exceeding observed headache risk. The updated HAPRED-II model showed an AUC of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.57-0.61) in the first 14 days, improving to an AUC of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.63-0.70) after the first month, with improved calibration across predicted risk levels.
No evidence suggested that receipt of forecasts was associated with increasing headache frequency or worsening predicted headache risk trajectories. Safety data on serious adverse events or discontinuations were not reported. Key limitations include the limited transportability of the static model to new individuals and the need for richer physiologic and contextual predictors before such systems can reliably guide clinical treatment decisions.
The practice relevance is that models which continuously update within individuals may improve predictive accuracy over time and enable real-time delivery of personalized migraine risk forecasts. However, the study suggests further work is necessary before systems can reliably guide clinical treatment decisions.
View Original Abstract ↓
Abstract Importance Migraine attacks often occur unpredictably, limiting the ability of individuals to initiate timely preventive or preemptive treatment. Short-term probabilistic forecasting of migraine risk could enable more targeted management strategies. Objective To externally validate the previously developed Headache Prediction Model (HAPRED-I), evaluate an updated continuously learning model (HAPRED-II), and assess the feasibility and short-term safety of delivering individualized probabilistic migraine forecasts directly to patients. Design, Setting, and Participants Prospective 8-week cohort study conducted remotely at two academic medical centers in the United States (Massachusetts General Hospital and Wake Forest Health Sciences) between 2015 and 2019. Adults with recurrent migraine or tension-type headache completed twice-daily electronic diaries. A total of 230 participants contributed 23,335 diary entries across 11,862 participant-days of observation. Main Outcomes and Measures Occurrence of a headache attack within 24 hours following each evening diary entry. Model performance was evaluated using discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]) and calibration. Results External validation of HAPRED-I demonstrated modest discrimination (AUC, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.57-0.61) and poor calibration, with predicted probabilities consistently exceeding observed headache risk. In contrast, the continuously updating HAPRED-II model demonstrated progressive improvement in predictive performance as participant-specific data accumulated. Discrimination increased from an AUC of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.57-0.61) during the first 14 days to 0.66 (95% CI, 0.63-0.70) after the first month, accompanied by improved calibration across predicted risk levels. Over the study period, 6999 individualized forecasts were delivered directly to participants. No evidence suggested that receipt of forecasts was associated with increasing headache frequency or worsening predicted headache risk trajectories. Conclusions and Relevance A static migraine forecasting model demonstrated limited transportability to new individuals. In contrast, models that continuously update within individuals may improve predictive accuracy over time and enable real-time delivery of personalized migraine risk forecasts. Further work incorporating richer physiologic and contextual predictors will likely be necessary before such systems can reliably guide clinical treatment decisions.