Enhancing Migraine Trigger Surprisal Predictions: A Bayesian Approach to Establishing Prospective Expectations

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher
AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-03 · read from full text

The study developed Bayesian methods to compute prospective “surprisal” (unexpectedness of trigger exposure) for predicting migraine attack risk using daily diary data from 104 people with migraine collected over 28 days. Stress, sleep, and exercise exposures were modeled with distributional forms under uninformative and empirical priors, and surprisal was recalculated in real time and compared with static empirical surprisal values derived after observing the full period. Dynamic Bayesian surprisal differed from retrospective estimates, especially early on; divergence was greater and more variable with uninformative priors but attenuated over time, while empirically informed priors yielded more stable, lower-bias trajectories, with substantial individual variability particularly for exercise. The paper’s main limitation is that prospective modeling is highly sensitive to prior specification in sparse-data settings (notably for binary exposures). The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Objective To extend the application of surprisal theory for predicting migraine attack risk by developing methods to estimate trigger variable likelihood in real time, under conditions of limited personal observation. Background Prior work has demonstrated that higher surprisal, a measure quantifying the unexpectedness of a trigger exposure, predicts headache onset over 12 to 24 hours. However, these analyses relied on retrospective expectations of trigger exposure formed after extended data collection. To operationalize surprisal prospectively, Bayesian methods could update expectations dynamically over time. Methods In a prospective daily diary study of individuals with migraine (N = 104), data were collected over 28 days, including stress, sleep, and exercise exposures. Bayesian models were applied to estimate daily expectations for each variable under uninformative and empirical priors derived from the sample. Stress was modeled using a hurdle-Gamma distribution, sleep using a rounded Normal distribution, and exercise using a Bernoulli distribution. Surprisal was calculated based on the predictive distribution at each time point and compared to static empirical surprisal values obtained after full data collection. Results Dynamic Bayesian surprisal values systematically differed from retrospective empirical estimates, particularly early in the observation period. Divergence was larger and more variable under uninformative priors but attenuated over time. Empirically informed priors produced more stable, lower-bias surprisal trajectories. Substantial individual variability was observed across exposure types, especially for exercise behavior. Conclusions Prospective surprisal modeling is feasible but highly sensitive to prior specification, especially in sparse data contexts (e.g., a binary exposure). Incorporating empirical or individually informed priors may improve early model calibration, though individual learning remains essential. These methods offer a foundation for real-time headache forecasting and dynamic modeling of brain-environment interactions.
Full text 4,116 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 5 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Objective To extend the application of surprisal theory for predicting migraine attack risk by developing methods to estimate trigger variable likelihood in real time, under conditions of limited personal observation.

Background

Prior work has demonstrated that higher surprisal, a measure quantifying the unexpectedness of a trigger exposure, predicts headache onset over 12 to 24 hours. However, these analyses relied on retrospective expectations of trigger exposure formed after extended data collection. To operationalize surprisal prospectively, Bayesian methods could update expectations dynamically over time.

Methods

In a prospective daily diary study of individuals with migraine (N = 104), data were collected over 28 days, including stress, sleep, and exercise exposures. Bayesian models were applied to estimate daily expectations for each variable under uninformative and empirical priors derived from the sample. Stress was modeled using a hurdle-Gamma distribution, sleep using a rounded Normal distribution, and exercise using a Bernoulli distribution. Surprisal was calculated based on the predictive distribution at each time point and compared to static empirical surprisal values obtained after full data collection.

Results

Dynamic Bayesian surprisal values systematically differed from retrospective empirical estimates, particularly early in the observation period. Divergence was larger and more variable under uninformative priors but attenuated over time. Empirically informed priors produced more stable, lower-bias surprisal trajectories. Substantial individual variability was observed across exposure types, especially for exercise behavior.

Conclusions

Prospective surprisal modeling is feasible but highly sensitive to prior specification, especially in sparse data contexts (e.g., a binary exposure). Incorporating empirical or individually informed priors may improve early model calibration, though individual learning remains essential. These methods offer a foundation for real-time headache forecasting and dynamic modeling of brain-environment interactions. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Funding Statement The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01NS113823. Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: The Institutional Review Board of Mass General Brigham gave ethical approval for this work. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes Footnotes Funding: The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01NS113823. Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Data Availability The data may be available upon reasonable request to the authors.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-22T02:00:06.705733+00:00
License: CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0