Minen, Mia T.

Abstract Objective The goal is to provide an overview of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) methodology and appraisal tailored to clinicians and researchers in the headache field to facilitate interdisciplinary communications and research. Background The application of AI to the study of headache and other healthcare challenges is growing rapidly. It is critical that these findings be accurately interpreted by headache specialists, but this can be difficult for non‐AI specialists. Methods This paper is a narrative review of the fundamentals required to understand ML/AI headache research. Using guidance from key leaders in the field of headache medicine and AI, important references were reviewed and cited to provide a comprehensive overview of the terminology, methodology, applications, pitfalls, and bias of AI. Results We review how AI models are created, common model types, methods for evaluation, and examples of their application to headache medicine. We also highlight potential pitfalls relevant when consuming AI research, and discuss ethical issues of bias, privacy and abuse generated by AI. Additionally, we highlight recent related research from across headache‐related applications. Conclusion Many promising current and future applications of ML and AI exist in the field of headache medicine. Understanding the fundamentals of AI will allow readers to understand and critically appraise AI‐related research findings in their proper context. This paper will increase the reader's comfort in consuming AI/ML‐based research and will prepare them to think critically about related research developments.

Objective To outline strategies for the treatment of migraine which do not require in‐person visits to clinic or the emergency department, and to describe ways that health insurance companies can remove barriers to quality care for migraine. Background COVID‐19 is a global pandemic causing widespread infections and death. To control the spread of infection we are called to observe “social distancing” and we have been asked to postpone any procedures which are not essential. Since procedural therapies are a mainstay of headache care, the inability to do procedures could negatively affect our patients with migraine. In this manuscript we review alternative therapies, with particular attention to those which may be contra‐indicated in the setting of COVID‐19 infection. Design/Results The manuscript reviews the use of telemedicine visits and acute, bridge, and preventive therapies for migraine. We focus on evidence‐based treatment where possible, but also describe “real world” strategies which may be tried. In each section we call out areas where changes to rules from commercial health insurance companies would facilitate better migraine care. Conclusions Our common goal as health care providers is to maximize the health and safety of our patients. Successful management of migraine with avoidance of in‐person clinic and emergency department visits further benefits the current urgent societal goal of maintaining social distance to contain the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Objectives We sought to survey the N ew I nvestigators and T rainees S ection ( NITS ) members of the A merican H eadache S ociety ( AHS ) to better understand their exposure to headache medicine during training and to determine their perceptions and attitudes about the field and the future of headache medicine. Background Despite the high prevalence of headache disorders in the general population, only about 2% of neurology residents pursue headache medicine fellowships. Furthermore, there is a paucity of U nited C ouncil of N eurologic S ubspecialties headache specialists in the country to meet the population demands. Thus, there needs to be a focus on how to recruit and retain more headache specialists. Methods A survey was distributed via S urvey M onkey to the NITS listserv. It remained online for 60 days, during which reminder emails were sent to members of the listserv. In addition, the survey was available on laptops at NITS ‐related events at an annual AHS meeting. Descriptive analyses were then conducted using S urvey M onkey and E xcel. Results Of the 93 members of NITS , 64 of the 96 (68.8%) clicked to initiate the survey and 52.7% successfully completed it. Attendings made up the majority of respondents (62.5%), followed by fellows (10.9%), and residents (7.8%). Key highlights of the survey included the following: just under 10% reported no exposure to a headache center during any time in their training (medical school, residency, or fellowship); less than 2% had exposure to a headache center during medical school; less than half of participants reported exposure to a headache center in residency (45.3%) and during fellowship (43.4%). Having a mentor in the field, liking the patient population, and working in a headache center, 64.7%, 52.9%, and 41.2%, respectively, were the top ways in which participants became interested in headache. The journal H eadache (56.9%), attendings (56.3%), and the AHS / A merican A cademy of N eurology guidelines for migraine management (52.0%) are the resources cited as being used all/most of the time. About 82.4% strongly agree that there needs to be improved headache education for physicians of all specialties (primary care, emergency department, psychiatry); 84.4% feel that they are appreciated by their patients; 68.6% feel that there is strong support in their departments for headache; 56.9% believe that their work schedule leaves enough time for personal and family life; and 60.8% agreed that their professional life will improve in years to come. Participants agreed/strongly agreed that they like to treat the following diseases/symptoms: migraine headache (98.0%), cluster headache (92%), chronic daily headache (84%), and post‐concussive syndrome (71.4%). Participants disagreed/strongly disagreed that they like to treat the following comorbid conditions/symptoms: low back pain (66.6%), dizziness (42.9%), sleep apnea (36.7%), depression (32.0%), and anxiety (32.0%). Conclusions In this detailed survey on the recruitment and retention of headache specialists, the following themes emerged: mentorship and exposure to a headache center are key foundations in the young investigator/trainee experience. Young headache specialists appear positive about their field of medicine. These specialists like to treat various headache types but not necessarily some of the related comorbidities (sleep disorders, depression, anxiety, back pain, and dizziness). Finally, there was strong agreement that there needs to be improved headache education for physicians of other medical specialties.